Mailbox anti-spam thing - recommendations wanted

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Nozza, Jul 4, 2003.

  1. Nozza

    Nozza Guest

    What anti-spam software do people rate as good?

    I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot the
    spam, and delete it before I download it.

    Thanks

    Noz
    --
    Remove the obvious spam trap when replying by email
    Nozza, Jul 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nozza

    Fummie Guest

    Nozza wrote:
    > What anti-spam software do people rate as good?
    >
    > I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot the
    > spam, and delete it before I download it.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Noz


    Mailwasher is good, you can delete/block or bounce back emails before you
    download them.
    Fummie, Jul 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nozza

    derek / nul Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:54 GMT, "Fummie" <> wrote:

    >Nozza wrote:
    >> What anti-spam software do people rate as good?
    >>
    >> I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot the
    >> spam, and delete it before I download it.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Noz

    >
    >Mailwasher is good, you can delete/block or bounce back emails before you
    >download them.


    Don't bounce them, they cause errors at your ISP's mail server
    derek / nul, Jul 4, 2003
    #3
  4. On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:54 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    boggled at the following statement by Fummie in message
    news:OkdNa.577$

    > Nozza wrote:
    >> What anti-spam software do people rate as good?
    >>
    >> I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot
    >> the spam, and delete it before I download it.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Noz

    >
    > Mailwasher is good, you can delete/block or bounce back emails
    > before you download them.
    >
    >


    Using the bopunce feature of Mailwasher is an exercise in futility, since
    spammers don't usually use a valid address, and, when they do, it's from
    a throw-away account, so using the bounce feature just causes unnecessary
    traffic.

    --
    The Old Sourdough
    No of SETI units returned: 1795
    Processing time: 3 years, 272 days, 11 hours.
    (Total hours: 32819)
    www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu
    The Old Sourdough, Jul 4, 2003
    #4
  5. "The Old Sourdough" wrote
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:54 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    > boggled at the following statement by Fummie
    >
    > > Nozza wrote:
    > >> What anti-spam software do people rate as good?
    > >>
    > >> I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot
    > >> the spam, and delete it before I download it.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks
    > >>
    > >> Noz

    > >
    > > Mailwasher is good, you can delete/block or bounce back emails
    > > before you download them.


    > Using the bopunce feature of Mailwasher is an exercise in futility, since
    > spammers don't usually use a valid address, and, when they do, it's from
    > a throw-away account, so using the bounce feature just causes
    > unnecessary traffic.


    Any posts from you are also unnecessary traffic. When are you
    going to apologize to humanity for your unseemly existence?

    GROTOS

    Randy

    --
    http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=3037
    http://www.classicwesterns.com/r/Randolph_Scott_Western_VHS_Videos/
    http://www.cmhpf.org/S&RR/RScott.html
    Randolph Scott, Jul 4, 2003
    #5
  6. Nozza

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:54 GMT, Fummie wrote:

    >Nozza wrote:
    >> What anti-spam software do people rate as good?
    >>
    >> I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot the
    >> spam, and delete it before I download it.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Noz

    >
    >Mailwasher is good, you can delete/block or bounce back emails before you
    >download them.


    "If you implement a worthless, pointless, bounceback feature, you will be
    causing your users to violate their ISP AUP, and you will be CONTRIBUTING to
    mail abuse.

    There is no useful purpose for sending back a fake bounce hours after the
    message was already successfully sent at the MTA level. - especially since
    the "from" and "return path" addresses are normally forged as a common MO
    of just about all spamware.

    Mailwasher is getting raked over the coals for their worthless bounce-back
    feature. It is nothing but marketing fluff, and there is no reason
    whatsoever to implement this type of abusive feature."
    --Square Giblets, nanae, 1/17/03

    http://tinyurl.com/g155

    --
    "I'm all for co-ed naked spam fighting."
    -- Ereshkigal, nanae, 8/05/2000
    Mara, Jul 4, 2003
    #6
  7. On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:51:10 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    boggled at the following statement by Randolph Scott in message
    news:

    > "The Old Sourdough" wrote
    >> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:54 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    >> boggled at the following statement by Fummie
    >>
    >> > Nozza wrote:
    >> >> What anti-spam software do people rate as good?
    >> >>
    >> >> I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot
    >> >> the spam, and delete it before I download it.
    >> >>
    >> >> Thanks
    >> >>
    >> >> Noz
    >> >
    >> > Mailwasher is good, you can delete/block or bounce back emails
    >> > before you download them.

    >
    >> Using the bopunce feature of Mailwasher is an exercise in futility,
    >> since spammers don't usually use a valid address, and, when they
    >> do, it's from a throw-away account, so using the bounce feature
    >> just causes unnecessary traffic.

    >
    > Any posts from you are also unnecessary traffic. When are you
    > going to apologize to humanity for your unseemly existence?
    >
    > GROTOS
    >
    > Randy
    >


    Criticsm from a moldering, dead, grade-B oater actor. Just what everyone
    needs. Crawl back into your reserved spot on Boot Hill, and take your
    horse with ya. He's the only thing you ever had sex with.


    --
    The Old Sourdough
    No of SETI units returned: 1795
    Processing time: 3 years, 272 days, 11 hours.
    (Total hours: 32819)
    www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu
    The Old Sourdough, Jul 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Nozza

    Jimchip Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:31:20 -0500, The Old Sourdough wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:51:10 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    > boggled at the following statement by Randolph Scott in message
    > news:
    >
    >> "The Old Sourdough" wrote
    >>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:54 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    >>> boggled at the following statement by Fummie
    >>>
    >>> > Nozza wrote:
    >>> >> What anti-spam software do people rate as good?
    >>> >>
    >>> >> I'm looking for summat which can access multiple mailboxes, spot
    >>> >> the spam, and delete it before I download it.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Thanks
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Noz
    >>> >
    >>> > Mailwasher is good, you can delete/block or bounce back emails
    >>> > before you download them.

    >>
    >>> Using the bopunce feature of Mailwasher is an exercise in futility,
    >>> since spammers don't usually use a valid address, and, when they
    >>> do, it's from a throw-away account, so using the bounce feature
    >>> just causes unnecessary traffic.

    >>
    >> Any posts from you are also unnecessary traffic. When are you
    >> going to apologize to humanity for your unseemly existence?
    >>
    >> GROTOS
    >>
    >> Randy
    >>

    >
    > Criticsm from a moldering, dead, grade-B oater actor. Just what everyone
    > needs. Crawl back into your reserved spot on Boot Hill, and take your
    > horse with ya. He's the only thing you ever had sex with.


    I see the Dead Guy is once again following around the Bread Guy :)

    --
    Anyone outside my light-cone is dead to me. That's just a rule I have.
    (lifted from /. Posted by jamie.)
    Jimchip, Jul 4, 2003
    #8
  9. On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:47:36 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    boggled at the following statement by Jimchip in message
    news:


    snip

    >>>
    >>> Any posts from you are also unnecessary traffic. When are you
    >>> going to apologize to humanity for your unseemly existence?
    >>>
    >>> GROTOS
    >>>
    >>> Randy
    >>>

    >>
    >> Criticsm from a moldering, dead, grade-B oater actor. Just what
    >> everyone needs. Crawl back into your reserved spot on Boot Hill,
    >> and take your horse with ya. He's the only thing you ever had sex
    >> with.

    >
    > I see the Dead Guy is once again following around the Bread Guy :)
    >


    It's something he feels he "kneads" to do....

    --
    The Old Sourdough
    No of SETI units returned: 1795
    Processing time: 3 years, 272 days, 11 hours.
    (Total hours: 32819)
    www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu
    The Old Sourdough, Jul 4, 2003
    #9
  10. Nozza

    Jimchip Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:08:37 -0500, The Old Sourdough wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:47:36 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    > boggled at the following statement by Jimchip in message
    > news:
    >
    >
    > snip
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> Any posts from you are also unnecessary traffic. When are you
    >>>> going to apologize to humanity for your unseemly existence?
    >>>>
    >>>> GROTOS
    >>>>
    >>>> Randy
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Criticsm from a moldering, dead, grade-B oater actor. Just what
    >>> everyone needs. Crawl back into your reserved spot on Boot Hill,
    >>> and take your horse with ya. He's the only thing you ever had sex
    >>> with.

    >>
    >> I see the Dead Guy is once again following around the Bread Guy :)
    >>

    >
    > It's something he feels he "kneads" to do....


    It's not easy to get a "rise" from the dead...


    --
    Anyone outside my light-cone is dead to me. That's just a rule I have.
    (lifted from /. Posted by jamie.)
    Jimchip, Jul 4, 2003
    #10
  11. Nozza

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:01:06 -0400, Thund3rstruck wrote:

    >Mara rambled on about something in
    ><>:
    >
    >> "If you implement a worthless, pointless, bounceback feature, you
    >> will be causing your users to violate their ISP AUP, and you will be
    >> CONTRIBUTING to mail abuse.
    >>
    >> There is no useful purpose for sending back a fake bounce hours
    >> after the message was already successfully sent at the MTA level. -
    >> especially since
    >> the "from" and "return path" addresses are normally forged as a
    >> common MO of just about all spamware.

    >
    > While I agree 100%, I did use mailwasher's bounce feature once. Was
    >being harassed online, and stalked in person by a lunatic. I bounced
    >her last e-mail threat to myself, so that at least online I would be
    >free. <G> But I digress. If the recipient knows the net and how it
    >operates, they can spot the fake bounce, and then get you in trouble
    >at the ISP level.


    I'd have just gotten the account nuked. But that's me. ;)

    >
    > Plus, if you bounce spammers, there's just that much more e-mail
    >traffic out there, looking for a (usually) non-existent address to go
    >to, increasing server load.


    Exactly. And if the forged address is actually a real one, used out of revenge
    or stupidity or what-have-you, an innocent suffers. But you're preaching to the
    choir. I've been ranting about this for a long time. :)

    >
    > I only use mailwasher on my windows machines, so I can see what's
    >in the box, and delete the spam before it gets to the computer now...


    I don't use anything at all. And even before my host started using SpamAssassin
    at the server level, I received no spam to speak of - I was ebayed once, but
    that was soon sorted, and I was Paypal-ed once, and had to use the Orbital
    launcher for them, but they finally did get the point. And that's been it. :)

    Mailwasher is actually one of my pet peeves, because it really doesn't do
    anything to end spam where the problem really lies - with the originating
    spammer. And it doesn't stop the spam being received by your host's server, and
    so has not accomplished anything much anywhere except for your inbox, and not
    much at that, really, IMHO. I don't believe in just fighting whatever spam I
    might happen to receive in one of my traps - I've been around a long time, know
    what the spam problem is, and would like to see it end for all.

    "Of course, if you tell anyone that the QoE actually said that, I'll deny even
    being alive at the time."

    >
    > NOI


    --
    "I'm all for co-ed naked spam fighting."
    -- Ereshkigal, nanae, 8/05/2000
    Mara, Jul 4, 2003
    #11
  12. Mara rambled on about something in
    <>:

    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:01:06 -0400, Thund3rstruck wrote:
    >> While I agree 100%, I did use mailwasher's bounce feature once.
    >> Was
    >>being harassed online, and stalked in person by a lunatic. I bounced
    >>her last e-mail threat to myself, so that at least online I would be
    >>free. <G> But I digress. If the recipient knows the net and how it
    >>operates, they can spot the fake bounce, and then get you in trouble
    >>at the ISP level.

    >
    > I'd have just gotten the account nuked. But that's me. ;)


    I was stressed out after months of this. Wasn't thinking clearly...

    >> Plus, if you bounce spammers, there's just that much more e-mail
    >>traffic out there, looking for a (usually) non-existent address to
    >>go to, increasing server load.

    >
    > Exactly. And if the forged address is actually a real one, used out
    > of revenge or stupidity or what-have-you, an innocent suffers. But
    > you're preaching to the choir. I've been ranting about this for a
    > long time. :)


    Yeap. Me too, but not here... <G>


    >> I only use mailwasher on my windows machines, so I can see what's
    >>in the box, and delete the spam before it gets to the computer
    >>now...

    >
    > I don't use anything at all. And even before my host started using
    > SpamAssassin at the server level, I received no spam to speak of - I
    > was ebayed once, but that was soon sorted, and I was Paypal-ed once,
    > and had to use the Orbital launcher for them, but they finally did
    > get the point. And that's been it. :)
    >
    > Mailwasher is actually one of my pet peeves, because it really
    > doesn't do anything to end spam where the problem really lies - with
    > the originating spammer. And it doesn't stop the spam being received
    > by your host's server, and so has not accomplished anything much
    > anywhere except for your inbox, and not much at that, really, IMHO.
    > I don't believe in just fighting whatever spam I might happen to
    > receive in one of my traps - I've been around a long time, know what
    > the spam problem is, and would like to see it end for all.
    >
    > "Of course, if you tell anyone that the QoE actually said that, I'll
    > deny even being alive at the time."


    I would like to see it end, too, but someone somewhere must be
    making money off it, or it would have died a long time ago. I
    remember when the US was trying to pass a law about 'Junk Faxes'.
    There was a big uproar over it from the ad community then.
    Interesting how even though the medium changes, the methods, and
    problems created stay the same...

    <Shrug>

    I just try to take care of my "neighborhood", and my mailbox.
    Pretty much all I can do sometimes...

    NOI
    Thund3rstruck, Jul 4, 2003
    #12
  13. Nozza

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:07:05 -0400, Thund3rstruck wrote:

    <snip>
    > I would like to see it end, too, but someone somewhere must be
    >making money off it, or it would have died a long time ago.


    Of course they are. There is always someone online stupid enough, or ignorant
    enough, or selfish enough, or apathetic enough, to answer a spam.

    "Too bad some humans don't have to take an IQ test, or a knowledge test, to get
    access."

    > I
    >remember when the US was trying to pass a law about 'Junk Faxes'.
    >There was a big uproar over it from the ad community then.


    It's the law, now. :)

    http://www.junkfaxes.org/federal_law.htm

    >Interesting how even though the medium changes, the methods, and
    >problems created stay the same...


    That's because a criminal mind is still a criminal mind no matter what medium it
    indulges in - and a thief is still a thief.

    >
    > <Shrug>
    >
    > I just try to take care of my "neighborhood", and my mailbox.
    >Pretty much all I can do sometimes...


    "I am only one. But still I am one. I cannot do everything; but still, I can do
    something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the
    something that I can do."
    --Edward Everett Hale

    :)

    >
    > NOI


    --
    "I'm all for co-ed naked spam fighting."
    -- Ereshkigal, nanae, 8/05/2000
    Mara, Jul 4, 2003
    #13
  14. Mara rambled on about something in
    <>:

    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:07:05 -0400, Thund3rstruck wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >> I would like to see it end, too, but someone somewhere must be
    >>making money off it, or it would have died a long time ago.

    >
    > Of course they are. There is always someone online stupid enough, or
    > ignorant enough, or selfish enough, or apathetic enough, to answer a
    > spam.


    Yup. Seen it many times over the last several years.

    > "Too bad some humans don't have to take an IQ test, or a knowledge
    > test, to get access."
    >
    >> I
    >>remember when the US was trying to pass a law about 'Junk Faxes'.
    >>There was a big uproar over it from the ad community then.

    >
    > It's the law, now. :)
    >
    > http://www.junkfaxes.org/federal_law.htm


    Good. Hope they use that as the basis for e-mail spam here. <G>

    >>Interesting how even though the medium changes, the methods, and
    >>problems created stay the same...

    >
    > That's because a criminal mind is still a criminal mind no matter
    > what medium it indulges in - and a thief is still a thief.


    yup. And spammers steal from everyone. (You know this, but others
    may be looking <G>) It costs to maintain and keep up an internet
    connection and a server. Spam slows down the connection, and causes
    the server's drives to fill faster.

    >>
    >> <Shrug>
    >>
    >> I just try to take care of my "neighborhood", and my mailbox.
    >>Pretty much all I can do sometimes...

    >
    > "I am only one. But still I am one. I cannot do everything; but
    > still, I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I
    > will not refuse to do the something that I can do."
    > --Edward Everett Hale
    >
    > :)


    Yup. <G>

    NOI
    Thund3rstruck, Jul 5, 2003
    #14
  15. Nozza

    RBR Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:01:06 -0400, Thund3rstruck
    <> wrote:

    >Mara rambled on about something in
    ><>:
    >
    >> "If you implement a worthless, pointless, bounceback feature, you
    >> will be causing your users to violate their ISP AUP, and you will be
    >> CONTRIBUTING to mail abuse.
    >>
    >> There is no useful purpose for sending back a fake bounce hours
    >> after the message was already successfully sent at the MTA level. -
    >> especially since
    >> the "from" and "return path" addresses are normally forged as a
    >> common MO of just about all spamware.

    >


    From and return path are not always forged.

    Mailwasher bounce was very effective in eliminating unwanted
    newsletters and ads and announcements from an outfit that did not
    otherwise provide a means for removing my name from their mail
    list.


    I am going to keep it and use it when needed.
    --
    rbr
    RBR, Jul 5, 2003
    #15
  16. Nozza

    Josef Knecht Guest

    The Old Sourdough doodled:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:47:36 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
    > boggled at the following statement by Jimchip in message
    > news:
    >
    >
    > snip
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> Any posts from you are also unnecessary traffic. When are you
    >>>> going to apologize to humanity for your unseemly existence?
    >>>>
    >>>> GROTOS
    >>>>
    >>>> Randy
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Criticsm from a moldering, dead, grade-B oater actor. Just what
    >>> everyone needs. Crawl back into your reserved spot on Boot Hill,
    >>> and take your horse with ya. He's the only thing you ever had sex
    >>> with.

    >>
    >> I see the Dead Guy is once again following around the Bread Guy :)
    >>

    >
    > It's something he feels he "kneads" to do....


    At 'yeast' he's getting a 'rise' out of you...

    --

    zar 2k3 - ULC Reverend
    Certified Word Police Officer - Details Detail
    http://www.geocities.com/spamresources/spambots.htm
    http://www.drcnet.org/ http://www.abovegod.com/
    NuMbEr Tr3#3!!!!11! on a lits...

    "A man, a plan, a canoe, pasta, heros, rajahs,
    a coloratura, maps, snipe, percale, macaroni,
    a gag, a banana bag, a tan, a tag, a banana bag
    again (or a camel), a crepe, pins, Spam, a rut,
    a Rolo, cash, a jar, sore hats, a peon, a canal
    - Panama!"

    - Guy Steele Jr., CLTL2
    Josef Knecht, Jul 7, 2003
    #16
    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:
    523
    Hywel
    Apr 12, 2004
  2. Scooby

    Anti Spam Software Recommendations

    Scooby, Aug 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    382
    Scooby
    Aug 12, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    739
  4. marjun

    free anti-spam/anti-virus

    marjun, Apr 28, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    737
    Toxic Beth
    May 1, 2007
  5. T.N.O.

    <rant> dman anti spam spam

    T.N.O., Dec 10, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    369
    Chris Mayhew
    Dec 11, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page