Re: clearnet's spam filters

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Keith, Sep 9, 2003.

  1. Keith

    Keith Guest

    In article <3f5d6586$>, says...
    > Surely they need to fine tune it. What software works well without it?
    > Two messages that were expected haven't arrived, mind you, the list of spam
    > a mile long has been reduced by about 90%.


    Joy

    You do realise that you can view the spam that has been filtered? Go to
    webmail.clear.net.nz and log on and then click on the Spam folder. You
    may find your missing messages there.
    Keith, Sep 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:33:01 +1200, Keith wrote:

    >
    > You do realise that you can view the spam that has been filtered? Go to
    > webmail.clear.net.nz and log on and then click on the Spam folder. You
    > may find your missing messages there.


    Right up to when disk quota is filled and _all_ your mail starts bouncing...



    --
    There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
    1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
    2: Fraud
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Sep 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:07:38 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:33:01 +1200, Keith wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> You do realise that you can view the spam that has been filtered? Go to
    >> webmail.clear.net.nz and log on and then click on the Spam folder. You
    >> may find your missing messages there.

    >
    >Right up to when disk quota is filled and _all_ your mail starts bouncing...


    Is the spam and inbox counted as one quota?

    While we're commenting on the performance of Paradise's spam
    filtering, last week a yahoo groups list I receive got into an endless
    loop when another recipient set their "I am out of the office" auto
    response. I saw none of them in my in box, Paradise had decided all
    600 messages were spam. It was a right pain going through the spam box
    on their incredibly slow webmail in case there were legitimate
    messages as well.

    Regards
    Malcolm.
    Malcolm Moore, Sep 9, 2003
    #3
  4. Keith

    Olof Olsson Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:06:50 +1200, Malcolm Moore
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:07:38 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:33:01 +1200, Keith wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> You do realise that you can view the spam that has been filtered? Go to
    >>> webmail.clear.net.nz and log on and then click on the Spam folder. You
    >>> may find your missing messages there.

    >>
    >>Right up to when disk quota is filled and _all_ your mail starts bouncing...

    >
    >Is the spam and inbox counted as one quota?
    >


    Yes it is. The Spam folder is part of the mailbox quota. Please note
    though, that we "age" the messages in the Spam folder and delete
    messages that are older than 30 days. (You can of course delete
    messages in the Spam folder at any time if you want to.)

    --Olof

    Olof Olsson <>
    There is a difference between knowing the
    path and walking the path -- Morpheus
    Olof Olsson, Sep 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Keith

    Olof Olsson Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:04:00 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:42:34 +1200, Olof Olsson wrote:
    >
    >>>Is the spam and inbox counted as one quota?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Yes it is. The Spam folder is part of the mailbox quota. Please note
    >> though, that we "age" the messages in the Spam folder and delete
    >> messages that are older than 30 days. (You can of course delete messages
    >> in the Spam folder at any time if you want to.)

    >
    >I get somewhere between 200 and 800 pieces of spam PER DAY.
    >
    >You can imagine what my quota would do.



    This is obviously a learning exercise for us as well. We will be
    reviewing and tuning the quota policy as required. Feedback more than
    welcome!

    --Olof

    Olof Olsson <>
    There is a difference between knowing the
    path and walking the path -- Morpheus
    Olof Olsson, Sep 10, 2003
    #5
  6. On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:03:09 +1200, Olof Olsson wrote:

    > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:04:00 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:42:34 +1200, Olof Olsson wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Is the spam and inbox counted as one quota?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Yes it is. The Spam folder is part of the mailbox quota. Please note
    >>> though, that we "age" the messages in the Spam folder and delete
    >>> messages that are older than 30 days. (You can of course delete messages
    >>> in the Spam folder at any time if you want to.)

    >>
    >>I get somewhere between 200 and 800 pieces of spam PER DAY.
    >>
    >>You can imagine what my quota would do.

    >
    >
    > This is obviously a learning exercise for us as well. We will be
    > reviewing and tuning the quota policy as required. Feedback more than
    > welcome!
    >


    Apply common sense.

    You should turn it off until you have developed the interface for your
    customers to turn it on or off themselves and deal with their own spam without
    using the webmail interface.
    The webmail interface is slow to use and a really ugly design.
    You should offer a plain vanilla white alternative in the preferences.
    Olson Johnson, Sep 10, 2003
    #6
  7. On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:42:34 +1200, Olof Olsson
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:06:50 +1200, Malcolm Moore
    ><> wrote:


    >>Is the spam and inbox counted as one quota?
    >>

    >
    >Yes it is. The Spam folder is part of the mailbox quota. Please note
    >though, that we "age" the messages in the Spam folder and delete
    >messages that are older than 30 days. (You can of course delete
    >messages in the Spam folder at any time if you want to.)
    >
    > --Olof

    Can you remind me how big is the quota for an ordinary 250 Hrs
    customer? The current Terms and Conditions doesn't seem to mention
    it.

    By the way, thank you for contributing to these discussions. It always
    amazes me how organisations involved in allowing people to communicate
    very often clam up and don't themselves communicate. eg
    http://www.paradise.net.nz/detect/frames/default/pages/main/motd.html
    hasn't been updated for nearly a year. Surely if it was current it
    would take some load off the help desk.

    Regards
    Malcolm.
    Malcolm Moore, Sep 10, 2003
    #7
  8. Keith

    Col^ Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:03:09 +1200, Olof Olsson
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:04:00 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:42:34 +1200, Olof Olsson wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Is the spam and inbox counted as one quota?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Yes it is. The Spam folder is part of the mailbox quota. Please note
    >>> though, that we "age" the messages in the Spam folder and delete
    >>> messages that are older than 30 days. (You can of course delete messages
    >>> in the Spam folder at any time if you want to.)

    >>
    >>I get somewhere between 200 and 800 pieces of spam PER DAY.
    >>
    >>You can imagine what my quota would do.

    >
    >
    >This is obviously a learning exercise for us as well. We will be
    >reviewing and tuning the quota policy as required. Feedback more than
    >welcome!
    >
    > --Olof
    >

    SO can we ring Paradise/ Clear and order them to take the bloody spam filter
    off or not . ?

    --

    Col

    Col's law.
    Thinly sliced cabbage..
    Col^, Sep 10, 2003
    #8
  9. Keith

    Olof Olsson Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:36:43 +1200, Malcolm Moore
    <> wrote:

    >>Yes it is. The Spam folder is part of the mailbox quota. Please note
    >>though, that we "age" the messages in the Spam folder and delete
    >>messages that are older than 30 days. (You can of course delete
    >>messages in the Spam folder at any time if you want to.)
    >>
    >> --Olof

    >Can you remind me how big is the quota for an ordinary 250 Hrs
    >customer? The current Terms and Conditions doesn't seem to mention
    >it.
    >


    The standard mailbox quota for _all_ clear.net users is 15M. The
    customer can then increase the disk allocation. But you will have to
    pay for it. As outlined before the mailbox quotas are "automatically"
    enforced.

    For paradise.net, the mailbox quota is 1M, but is not automatically
    enforced.

    >By the way, thank you for contributing to these discussions. It always
    >amazes me how organisations involved in allowing people to communicate
    >very often clam up and don't themselves communicate. eg
    >http://www.paradise.net.nz/detect/frames/default/pages/main/motd.html
    >hasn't been updated for nearly a year. Surely if it was current it
    >would take some load off the help desk.
    >


    No worries, and thanks! Life in "largish" orgnisations is strange
    sometimes :)

    --Olof

    Olof Olsson <>
    There is a difference between knowing the
    path and walking the path -- Morpheus
    Olof Olsson, Sep 10, 2003
    #9
  10. Keith

    Olof Olsson Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:32:07 +1200, Olson Johnson <> wrote:


    >>
    >> This is obviously a learning exercise for us as well. We will be
    >> reviewing and tuning the quota policy as required. Feedback more than
    >> welcome!
    >>

    >
    >Apply common sense.
    >


    We try! :)

    >You should turn it off until you have developed the interface for your
    >customers to turn it on or off themselves and deal with their own spam without
    >using the webmail interface.


    You can via IMAP. There is no "easy" way to provide access to a folder
    if you exclude webmail and IMAP. If you got any great ideas though, we
    are happy to consider them!

    >The webmail interface is slow to use and a really ugly design.
    >You should offer a plain vanilla white alternative in the preferences.


    We like the design! I think it is pretty plain as it is. Unlikely I
    think that we would offer an alternate webmail interface.

    Cheers,

    --Olof

    Olof Olsson <>
    There is a difference between knowing the
    path and walking the path -- Morpheus
    Olof Olsson, Sep 10, 2003
    #10
  11. Keith

    Olof Olsson Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:17:06 +1200, Col^ <> wrote:


    >>

    >SO can we ring Paradise/ Clear and order them to take the bloody spam filter
    >off or not . ?


    Believe it or not, but I am currently involved in the final testing of
    the per-user opt-in/opt-out functionality. We are planning to roll
    this out in early October. In other words, you can soon go the the
    clear.net web site and turn it off youself. (Or call us, if you prefer
    to do it that way.)


    ---Olof

    Olof Olsson <>
    There is a difference between knowing the
    path and walking the path -- Morpheus
    Olof Olsson, Sep 10, 2003
    #11
  12. On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:42:34 +1200, Olof Olsson wrote:

    >>Is the spam and inbox counted as one quota?
    >>
    >>

    > Yes it is. The Spam folder is part of the mailbox quota. Please note
    > though, that we "age" the messages in the Spam folder and delete
    > messages that are older than 30 days. (You can of course delete messages
    > in the Spam folder at any time if you want to.)


    I get somewhere between 200 and 800 pieces of spam PER DAY.

    You can imagine what my quota would do.

    Or for that matter what would happen when someone's sobig.G infected
    machine again forges a couple million pieces of junkmail using my email
    address (Not this one, the one which appears in all those old FAQs)

    --
    There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
    1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
    2: Fraud
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Sep 10, 2003
    #12
  13. Keith

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Olson Johnson" wrote
    > Apply common sense.


    Common sense isnt that common.

    > You should turn it off until you have developed the interface for your
    > customers to turn it on or off themselves and deal with their own spam

    without
    > using the webmail interface.


    How would they interface with it if not through the web? I mean they could(I
    guess) make a plugin for every imaginable mail client, but surely the web
    would be more handy for all...

    > The webmail interface is slow to use and a really ugly design.
    > You should offer a plain vanilla white alternative in the preferences.


    Colour shouldn't make any difference to load times... I assume you mean more
    of a plain text, no pictures type interface?
    T.N.O., Sep 10, 2003
    #13
  14. On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:10:50 +1200, T.N.O. wrote:


    >
    > How would they interface with it if not through the web? I mean they could(I
    > guess) make a plugin for every imaginable mail client, but surely the web
    > would be more handy for all...


    Turn off the ISP spam filter in the ISPs web based user preferences, and use the
    client filter of your choice.

    I can do that with my work mailserver and it allows me to manually
    select and deselect the spam messages to train the filtering
    Olson Johnson, Sep 10, 2003
    #14
  15. Keith

    ufo_hk Guest

    Help link goes to a folder list? - is it supposed to or should it go to the
    index.html file ?

    "Olof Olsson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:32:07 +1200, Olson Johnson <> wrote:
    >


    > We like the design! I think it is pretty plain as it is. Unlikely I
    > think that we would offer an alternate webmail interface.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > --Olof
    >
    > Olof Olsson <>
    > There is a difference between knowing the
    > path and walking the path -- Morpheus
    >
    ufo_hk, Sep 10, 2003
    #15
  16. Keith

    Olof Olsson Guest

    On 10 Sep 2003 12:42:56 +1200, <> wrote:


    >As for turning it off-- as I'm on the Home150 I'll guess it'll
    >turn itself off when the free offer runs out.
    >


    Will keep you posted on how this will work.

    >Then I'll be
    >back to the MailWasher and Pegasus filtering.


    Or you can continue using the service for $2/month. :)

    --Olof

    Olof Olsson <>
    There is a difference between knowing the
    path and walking the path -- Morpheus
    Olof Olsson, Sep 10, 2003
    #16
  17. <> wrote in message news:3f5e7390$...
    >
    > Olof Olsson <> wrote:
    > >On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:32:07 +1200, Olson Johnson <> wrote:

    > ..snip...
    > >>The webmail interface is slow to use and a really ugly design.
    > >>You should offer a plain vanilla white alternative in the preferences.

    > >
    > >We like the design! I think it is pretty plain as it is.

    >
    >
    > So do I and I don't think it's that slow, even on my dial-up.
    >
    > As for turning it off-- as I'm on the Home150 I'll guess it'll
    > turn itself off when the free offer runs out. Then I'll be
    > back to the MailWasher and Pegasus filtering.


    I am biased against browser-based mail clients (webmail) because the
    logistics of loading web pages are very slow and prone to failure compared
    to using a purpose-built mail client (of which there are many). The
    problems with this new service as I see it are as follows:

    1) Its mandatory. Free till year end but mandatory until October.
    2) Rejected messages can only be accessed by Clear's Webmail client.
    3) Rejected messages must be administered - to simply ignore it may generate
    mailbox cap problems that cause all emails to be blocked.
    4) When key emails don't arrive the spam folder must be checked (just in
    case..)

    I understand there is no better solution available for (2) and (3) and the
    service from Clear is the same as that provided by many others.

    I have for years taken my own actions to minimise spam (long username
    sparingly published) and protect against email virii but I am sucked into
    this new service whether I wish to be or not *because of the need to check
    and empty the spam folder*. To do this requires the use of an interface I
    personally despise.

    The fix is to have offered the opt-out option from the start and to have
    published how to do this in the announcement of the new service.

    --
    Bryan Souster
    For acronyms (IIRC, TIA etc) visit www.acronymfinder.com for the meanings.
    Bryan Souster, Sep 11, 2003
    #17
  18. Keith

    dodah Guest

    "Olof Olsson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:35:25 +1200, "Bryan Souster"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I have for years taken my own actions to minimise spam (long username
    > >sparingly published) and protect against email virii but I am sucked into
    > >this new service whether I wish to be or not *because of the need to

    check
    > >and empty the spam folder*. To do this requires the use of an interface I
    > >personally despise.
    > >

    >
    > If you have any better ideas, for how you would like to view sidelined
    > messages, please let us know. We always want to improve our servuce.
    >
    > >The fix is to have offered the opt-out option from the start and to have
    > >published how to do this in the announcement of the new service.

    >
    > Sorry, but you will have to wait until October for this one.
    >
    > --Olof
    >
    > Olof Olsson <>
    > There is a difference between knowing the
    > path and walking the path -- Morpheus


    I totally agree, I detest having to use the webmail service to check for
    spam, I have not had any problem with spam, mostly I get none at all but in
    recent years 1 or 2 a year have slipped through. I don't use any filtering
    at all, I am just careful who I give my address to, I use hotmail when I
    need to give my address out to someone that I maynot trust. To be forced
    into this service is totally dodgy.
    Also something fishy is going on with spam since they introduced this new
    service, I just checked my spam folder and there are 4 spams, I have never
    before got anywhere near this many spams in this short of time. Have
    telstraclear removed some sort of previous spam protection since they
    introduced this so called service or what. Yeah it maybe a conincidence but
    it seems an awefully big one, my email address has not been given out to
    anymore people/companies since this service started and in all the 8 years I
    have been on the net I have never had this much spam on my pop3 email
    address.

    As for virus protection, I don't need this either, never had a virus on my
    computer ever which if you listen to the media you would think was
    impossible, the reality is that most private users really only need a drop
    of common sense to avoid viruses, especially email ones, of course if you
    have small kids using your computer then you may need protection but on the
    whole virus protection advertising and general media hysteria is at the very
    least grossly misleading and at worst a scam. I know one particular internet
    publication in this country who can be heard frequently on the radio is a
    major player in creating virus hysteria.
    dodah, Sep 14, 2003
    #18
  19. On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:10:54 +1200, Olof Olsson wrote:

    >>

    >
    > If you have any better ideas, for how you would like to view sidelined
    > messages, please let us know. We always want to improve our servuce.
    >


    I want you to offer the option in the Paradise user preference page of
    turning the thing OFF
    You should have got this running in the first place BEFORE YOU INTRODUCED
    THE UNWANTED FEATURE.
    Olson Johnson, Sep 14, 2003
    #19
  20. "Olof Olsson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:35:25 +1200, "Bryan Souster"
    > <> wrote:

    [snip]
    > >1) Its mandatory. Free till year end but mandatory until October.

    >
    > Correct.
    >

    Improvement number one. Never introduce a compulsory service. Whatever the
    situation compulsion is offensive and inconvenient to some.

    > >2) Rejected messages can only be accessed by Clear's Webmail client.

    >
    > Or by using IMAP. Charged service though.
    >

    I (and I am sure many others) am not an IMAP user.

    > >3) Rejected messages must be administered - to simply ignore it may

    generate
    > >mailbox cap problems that cause all emails to be blocked.

    >
    > We do age these messages. Messages older than 30 days in your spam
    > folder are auto-deleted. Luckily almost all spam messages are very
    > small.
    >

    OK -so only those who receive more spam than the mailbox limit in any one
    30-day auto-delete cycle will get caught by this. I accept that this will be
    very rare and that currently I personally would never be affected by it.

    > >4) When key emails don't arrive the spam folder must be checked (just in
    > >case..)
    > >

    >
    > Maybe. Keep in mind the low false positive rate. 1 in 1 million
    > messages. You are unlikely to find a large number of false positives.
    >

    I agree that the liklihood of a missing message being in the spam folder is
    slight. My point is I have to look. Currently I dont.

    > >I understand there is no better solution available for (2) and (3) and

    the
    > >service from Clear is the same as that provided by many others.
    > >

    >
    > We are not offering the same solution as others. We use Brightmail,
    > see www.brightmail.com. I believe we are one of the first ISPs in the
    > southern hemisphere using them. 6 out of the top 10 ISPs in the US use
    > Brightmail.
    >

    My apologies. I use Bigfoot, and have used BT and Bigpond (all of which
    offer similar Brightmail-based services IIRC).

    > >I have for years taken my own actions to minimise spam (long username
    > >sparingly published) and protect against email virii but I am sucked into
    > >this new service whether I wish to be or not *because of the need to

    check
    > >and empty the spam folder*. To do this requires the use of an interface I
    > >personally despise.
    > >

    >
    > If you have any better ideas, for how you would like to view sidelined
    > messages, please let us know. We always want to improve our servuce.


    I understand why TC is introducing this service and generally applaud such
    innovation. The problem is that it is compulsory without being seamless to
    those who dont want or need it - even if just for a short period. This
    service should not have been introduced until the opt-out option due in
    October is available.

    [snip]

    --
    Bryan Souster
    For acronyms (IIRC, TIA etc) visit www.acronymfinder.com for the meanings.
    Bryan Souster, Sep 15, 2003
    #20
    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. Evil Bastard

    Re: clearnet's spam filters

    Evil Bastard, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Sep 10, 2003
  2. ufo_hk
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,338
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Oct 9, 2003
  3. Steve B

    Paradise/ ClearNet spam proofing?

    Steve B, Nov 8, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    665
    Steve B
    Nov 21, 2003
  4. ufo_hk
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    358
    JedMeister
    Nov 19, 2003
  5. updown

    annoying clearnet spam filter

    updown, Nov 23, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    709
    Patrick Dunford
    Nov 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page