anti spam sw?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Stef, Jun 30, 2007.

  1. Stef

    Stef Guest

    Can anyone recommend some basic anti spam software that merges painlessly
    with OE and that doesn't require emails to be checked at a different
    location or only allowed though when the sender put a code in or anything
    like that
    I've happily used Norton anti spam for 12 months but the subscription had
    run out and they'll only upgrade to their full security suite which I don't
    want
    Stef, Jun 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stef

    Vanguard Guest

    "Stef" wrote in message
    news:4685b8b6$0$8742$...
    > Can anyone recommend some basic anti spam software that merges
    > painlessly with OE and that doesn't require emails to be checked at a
    > different location or only allowed though when the sender put a code
    > in or anything like that
    > I've happily used Norton anti spam for 12 months but the subscription
    > had run out and they'll only upgrade to their full security suite
    > which I don't want



    SpamPal

    It only tags suspect mail as spam. It is up to you to define whatever
    rules you want to do whatever you want on this tagged mail. SpamPal
    identifies. You choose what to do with it.
    Vanguard, Jun 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stef

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    "Stef" <> wrote in message
    news:4685b8b6$0$8742$...
    > Can anyone recommend some basic anti spam software that merges painlessly
    > with OE and that doesn't require emails to be checked at a different
    > location or only allowed though when the sender put a code in or anything
    > like that
    > I've happily used Norton anti spam for 12 months but the subscription had
    > run out and they'll only upgrade to their full security suite which I
    > don't want



    I used Mailwasher (free) for many years with OE and now use it for Windows
    Mail on Vista.

    Just don't use the Bounce feature, it's worthless.


    >
    Mr. Arnold, Jun 30, 2007
    #3
  4. Stef

    Tee Jay Guest

    Stef wrote:
    > Can anyone recommend some basic anti spam software that merges painlessly
    > with OE and that doesn't require emails to be checked at a different
    > location or only allowed though when the sender put a code in or anything
    > like that
    > I've happily used Norton anti spam for 12 months but the subscription had
    > run out and they'll only upgrade to their full security suite which I don't
    > want
    >
    >

    Check out Thunderbird from the same fine folks who bring you Firefox and
    turn on the Spam measures. It features are many and it gets smarter
    the more you use it.
    Good Luck
    Tee Jay
    Tee Jay, Jun 30, 2007
    #4
  5. Stef

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Stef wrote:

    > Can anyone recommend some basic anti spam software that merges painlessly
    > with OE and that doesn't require emails to be checked at a different
    > location or only allowed though when the sender put a code in or anything
    > like that



    Can anyone recommend a triviality that merges painlessly with the 7th layer
    of the hell and isn't as broken as any imitations of a triviality?

    > I've happily used Norton anti spam for 12 months



    So, you have happily fried in hell... why do you want to avoid lesser pain now?
    Sebastian G., Jun 30, 2007
    #5
  6. Stef

    Vanguard Guest

    "Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
    news:pInhi.2334$...
    > I used Mailwasher (free) for many years with OE and now use it for
    > Windows Mail on Vista.



    Useful if you only have a single mail account. If you have more than
    one e-mail account then you need to find a different free solution. Too
    bad they don't actually donate to the DNS blacklists that they use since
    they obviously have a commercial version that they try to lure you into
    buying. Cheapskates!
    Vanguard, Jun 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Stef

    Jbob Guest

    "Vanguard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
    > news:pInhi.2334$...
    >> I used Mailwasher (free) for many years with OE and now use it for
    >> Windows Mail on Vista.

    >
    >
    > Useful if you only have a single mail account. If you have more than one
    > e-mail account then you need to find a different free solution. Too bad
    > they don't actually donate to the DNS blacklists that they use since they
    > obviously have a commercial version that they try to lure you into buying.
    > Cheapskates!


    Actually if you can find MailWasher 2.0.28 Beta, this is the last free
    version that still allows multiple accounts. Works great for me and has
    been for years now.
    Jbob, Jun 30, 2007
    #7
  8. Stef

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    "Vanguard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
    > news:pInhi.2334$...
    >> I used Mailwasher (free) for many years with OE and now use it for
    >> Windows Mail on Vista.

    >
    >
    > Useful if you only have a single mail account. If you have more than one
    > e-mail account then you need to find a different free solution. Too bad
    > they don't actually donate to the DNS blacklists that they use since they
    > obviously have a commercial version that they try to lure you into buying.
    > Cheapskates!


    I only have one email account. I only use MW for one thing, as a proxy
    between the pop3 server and the mail client software. Nothing just shows up
    on my machines due to some auto setting in OE or WM as those features are
    disabled.

    >
    Mr. Arnold, Jun 30, 2007
    #8
  9. Stef

    Stef Guest

    "Vanguard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
    > news:pInhi.2334$...
    >> I used Mailwasher (free) for many years with OE and now use it for
    >> Windows Mail on Vista.

    >
    >
    > Useful if you only have a single mail account. If you have more than one
    > e-mail account then you need to find a different free solution. Too bad
    > they don't actually donate to the DNS blacklists that they use since they
    > obviously have a commercial version that they try to lure you into buying.
    > Cheapskates!



    I don't mind paying for one that does what I want. I simply want a "spam
    folder" in OE that it diverts likely spam to. I don't want to have to check
    a web based site or anything first and ideally keep to using OE
    Stef, Jun 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Stef

    Jbob Guest

    "Stef" <> wrote in message
    news:4686bba5$0$8728$...
    >
    > "Vanguard" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
    >> news:pInhi.2334$...
    >>> I used Mailwasher (free) for many years with OE and now use it for
    >>> Windows Mail on Vista.

    >>
    >>
    >> Useful if you only have a single mail account. If you have more than one
    >> e-mail account then you need to find a different free solution. Too bad
    >> they don't actually donate to the DNS blacklists that they use since they
    >> obviously have a commercial version that they try to lure you into
    >> buying. Cheapskates!

    >
    >
    > I don't mind paying for one that does what I want. I simply want a "spam
    > folder" in OE that it diverts likely spam to. I don't want to have to
    > check a web based site or anything first and ideally keep to using OE



    You might have a look at this:

    http://keir.net/k9.html

    K9...it has a good follwing among some techies I know.
    Jbob, Jun 30, 2007
    #10
  11. Stef

    Ian Guest

    "Vanguard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Stef" wrote in message
    > news:4685b8b6$0$8742$...
    >> Can anyone recommend some basic anti spam software that merges painlessly
    >> with OE and that doesn't require emails to be checked at a different
    >> location or only allowed though when the sender put a code in or
    >> anything like that
    >> I've happily used Norton anti spam for 12 months but the subscription had
    >> run out and they'll only upgrade to their full security suite which I
    >> don't want

    >
    >
    > SpamPal
    >
    > It only tags suspect mail as spam. It is up to you to define whatever
    > rules you want to do whatever you want on this tagged mail. SpamPal
    > identifies. You choose what to do with it.
    >


    SpamPal works for me. I use it together with the Bayesian plugin, I still
    get the occasional one through, maybe 1 a week out of 200-300 spam messages.

    --
    Ian
    Ian, Jul 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Stef

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:41:34 -0400, Tee Jay
    <> wrote:

    >Check out Thunderbird from the same fine folks who bring you Firefox and
    > turn on the Spam measures. It features are many and it gets smarter
    >the more you use it.


    Yes, and since using it the desire to use outpost with symantec
    products dissapates quickly.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Jul 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Stef

    len garden Guest

    here are some freebies stef,

    super antispyware
    spyware blaster
    spybot search and destroy
    ad-ware 2007

    On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:58:04 +0100, "Stef" <>
    wrote:

    snipped
    With peace and brightest of blessings,

    len & bev

    --
    "Be Content With What You Have And
    May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
    A World That You May Not Understand."

    http://www.lensgarden.com.au/
    len garden, Jul 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Stef

    Vanguard Guest

    "Ian" wrote in message
    news:pZNhi.19327$...
    >
    > "Vanguard" wrote ...
    >> "Stef" wrote ...
    >>> Can anyone recommend some basic anti spam software that merges
    >>> painlessly with OE and that doesn't require emails to be checked at
    >>> a different location or only allowed though when the sender put a
    >>> code in or anything like that
    >>> I've happily used Norton anti spam for 12 months but the
    >>> subscription had run out and they'll only upgrade to their full
    >>> security suite which I don't want

    >>
    >> SpamPal
    >>
    >> It only tags suspect mail as spam. It is up to you to define
    >> whatever rules you want to do whatever you want on this tagged mail.
    >> SpamPal identifies. You choose what to do with it.

    >
    > SpamPal works for me. I use it together with the Bayesian plugin, I
    > still get the occasional one through, maybe 1 a week out of 200-300
    > spam messages.


    That's why I like that the primary function of SpamPal is the DNS
    blacklists of known spam sources. I don't use the aggressive lists
    (although SpamCop is usually considered above normal for aggressiveness
    but I do use that one). SPEWS is *not* a spam filter for personal use
    but instead to guage the spamminess of a domain. SORBS is way, way too
    slow to update their lists. I use the Spamhaus SBL+XBL (which include
    Composite Blocking List (CBL), and blitzed.org), NJABL, ORDB, and
    SpamCop blacklists. Bayesian filtering should ALWAYS be the *last*
    mechanism used to detect spam since it is a guessing scheme based on
    word weigthing over a historical sample set experienced by just one
    particular user. There are variations where you download a "community"
    driven database, like Outlook's junk filter; however, the weighting is
    based on a sample set that may not reflect the particular junk that you
    happen to get. There are also voting schemes, like Cloudmark, but then
    spam gets through until enough [trusted] community users have voted that
    the mail is spam so it will get through if it hits you while still new
    (i.e., not voted on yet or not enough votes yet), which is also a
    problem with the DNS blacklists (and why you need Bayesian or another
    scheme as a second filter).

    I also use the MXblocking plug-in because I don't want mails sent from
    dynamically IP addressed hosts. Those are the hosts that are infected
    with trojan mailers. If someone wants to operate their own mail server
    then let them get a static IP address (and also maintain the PTR records
    so a reverse lookup shows they list the valid mail server hosts at their
    domain).

    I used to use the HTML-Modify plugin but recent versions of e-mail
    client have an option to disable linked images. The plug-in was getting
    old and not updated by its author so the detection of old ploys for
    malware were no longer valid within the plug-in or already handled by
    firewalls, anti-virus, or e-mail/browser clients. Spammers quite using
    HTML, anyway, and most of anything that I see that leaks past my
    filtering is always text.

    I still use the UserLogfile plug-in because that gives me a plain-text
    version of any e-mails that got tagged as spam and may get [permanently]
    deleted within my e-mail client's rules. Sometimes a false positive
    still occurs (and why Bayesian isn't perfect or why DNSBLs may point to
    someone who just got their IP re-leased but got a spammer's prior IP
    address) and it helps to have the text version as backup. Unfortunately
    the author didn't provide for auto-expiration of old saved plain-text
    copies of spam-tagged e-mails so I wrote up a .bat script to do that.
    The author used to have a link to it on his site. I probably could use
    robocopy from the Resource Kit or other 3rd party software to do the
    expiration.

    Of course, I still leave the spam filtering option enabled on the mail
    server. There is no reason to waste downloading the spam and the CPU
    cycles disk space required to interrogate the e-mails to find the spam
    if the server can already do that upstream of my host. I consider any
    e-mail provider that does not provide an option to DISABLE their
    anti-spam filtering as a rude, uneducated, and egocentric service
    provider. I may not want their filtering if it generates lots of false
    positives or blocks from domains of my friends, so I will rely on my own
    spam filtering if their's sucks. Gmail is one of those rude providers.

    I was getting an average of 120 messages per day. About 3 or 4 might
    leak past the DNSBLs and Bayesian filtering. Those were brand new spam
    that wouldn't yet be on the blacklists, were being sent by zombied hosts
    sending through static IP addressed mail servers, and happen to use
    content that wasn't weight yet or enough in the Bayesian database to
    catch them. Considering the blast of commercials on television,
    including cable, I consider these few to be more than acceptable,
    especially since no one is obviously getting the same effect at spam
    filtering that also visits Usenet.

    The next anti-spam scheme that I'd like to add would be greylisting
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greylisting) but that has to be performed
    at the receiving mail server, not by a user's local e-mail client.
    Rejecting delivery for, say, an hour lets the DNSBLs get updated in time
    to detect the mail came from a spam source plus it would eliminate the
    zombied hosts since they don't bother to queue up and resend their spam.
    Obviously users should still be able to employ whitelisting to
    circumvent greylisting for known senders or trusted domains. If a
    sending mail server isn't willing to retry sending mails due to a
    first-time rejection then I don't want it.

    Don't even get me started on the a-holes that are irresponsible uses of
    challenge-response mail providers or clients (and challenges sent by
    client can be detected from those originating from mail servers that
    issue them). If someone tosses their C-R challenge "turd" in my Inbox
    then I will either not reply to them (because it is someone that is
    going to get hurt by my lack of response) or I will reply to them so
    they get the response and end up seeing the spam that there were
    attempting to use me to filter out of their Inbox. Read
    http://spamlinks.net/filter-cr.htm#issues-harmful.
    Vanguard, Jul 2, 2007
    #14
  15. Stef

    Vanguard Guest

    "len garden" wrote in message
    news:...
    > here are some freebies stef,
    >
    > super antispyware
    > spyware blaster
    > spybot search and destroy
    > ad-ware 2007



    And that has what to with spam? Spam may be infected. Actually I've
    gotten rare few spam that was infected. Instead they want to your SEE
    their spam and then go visit some web site. None of those products
    actually get rid of spam which is what the OP asked about.
    Vanguard, Jul 2, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. C A Preston

    Spam-Spam and more Spam

    C A Preston, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    568
    Hywel
    Apr 12, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    762
  3. marjun

    free anti-spam/anti-virus

    marjun, Apr 28, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    756
    Toxic Beth
    May 1, 2007
  4. T.N.O.

    <rant> dman anti spam spam

    T.N.O., Dec 10, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    373
    Chris Mayhew
    Dec 11, 2003
  5. Clwddncr
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    669
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Feb 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page