Spam Killing

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by collector@, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. collector@

    collector@ Guest

    I have been comparing Outlook 2002 (with rules filters) and Mozilla 1.5
    Mail Client (with Bayesian).

    The results come down 100% for Mozilla.

    My test mail comprised of turning on an account which I had originally
    set up on my domain as a throw away and allowing both programs to
    receive this mail. (This account gets about 100 to 150 spams a day to
    which I injected a quantity of genuine emails).

    With Outlook I had to set up the rules to catch the spam Mozilla just
    learn t as I marked the odd one it missed.

    I am really very impressed with Mozillas performance, it has not as yet
    hit one of the genuine emails as spam, even when I try to make them
    look/sound like spam.
    collector@, Jan 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. collector@

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <4013a5c2$>,
    "collector@" <> wrote:

    > I have been comparing Outlook 2002 (with rules filters) and Mozilla 1.5
    > Mail Client (with Bayesian).
    >
    > The results come down 100% for Mozilla.
    >
    > My test mail comprised of turning on an account which I had originally
    > set up on my domain as a throw away and allowing both programs to
    > receive this mail. (This account gets about 100 to 150 spams a day to
    > which I injected a quantity of genuine emails).
    >
    > With Outlook I had to set up the rules to catch the spam Mozilla just
    > learn t as I marked the odd one it missed.
    >
    > I am really very impressed with Mozillas performance, it has not as yet
    > hit one of the genuine emails as spam, even when I try to make them
    > look/sound like spam.
    >


    Even better is Xtra spam filtering, I do not even download the crap it
    is shunted off to a spam folder where I check it once a week. It has had
    ZERO false positive, only a couple of spam slipped through, and kills
    off about a dozen a day.
    whoisthis, Jan 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. collector@ wrote:
    > I have been comparing Outlook 2002 (with rules filters) and Mozilla 1.5
    > Mail Client (with Bayesian).
    > The results come down 100% for Mozilla.
    > My test mail comprised of turning on an account which I had originally
    > set up on my domain as a throw away and allowing both programs to
    > receive this mail. (This account gets about 100 to 150 spams a day to
    > which I injected a quantity of genuine emails).
    > With Outlook I had to set up the rules to catch the spam Mozilla just
    > learn t as I marked the odd one it missed.
    > I am really very impressed with Mozillas performance, it has not as yet
    > hit one of the genuine emails as spam, even when I try to make them
    > look/sound like spam.


    well done, Outlook 2k3 is near perfect in it's spam catching ability...
    a huge upgrade from 2002.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://Dave.net.nz
    We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2004
    #3
  4. collector@

    Collector Guest

    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > collector@ wrote:
    >
    >> I have been comparing Outlook 2002 (with rules filters) and Mozilla
    >> 1.5 Mail Client (with Bayesian).

    .....Snip
    > well done, Outlook 2k3 is near perfect in it's spam catching ability...
    > a huge upgrade from 2002.
    >

    Do you know off hand what method it uses to detect spam.
    Collector, Jan 26, 2004
    #4
  5. Collector wrote:
    >>> I have been comparing Outlook 2002 (with rules filters) and Mozilla
    >>> 1.5 Mail Client (with Bayesian).


    >> well done, Outlook 2k3 is near perfect in it's spam catching
    >> ability... a huge upgrade from 2002.


    > Do you know off hand what method it uses to detect spam.


    nah no idea... I usedto use spam assissign proxy, but now use the
    outlook 2k3 filters instead.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://Dave.net.nz
    We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Jan 27, 2004
    #5
  6. On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:52:12 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    [snip]

    If you want to kill spam, start by killing a few spammers.

    Shane Atkinson would be a good one to start with. There was a SBL record
    for him being on nac.net until last night, indicating he didn't really
    stop after all.
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jan 27, 2004
    #6
  7. collector@

    Jason M Guest

    On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:22:02 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler
    <> wrote:

    >If you want to kill spam, start by killing a few spammers.


    Can someone explain why spam can't just be tracked back to the
    originating IP address, or to a place where the originating IP has
    been altered and the message relayed on?
    Then one of those can go on a blacklist.
    Jason M, Jan 27, 2004
    #7
  8. collector@

    Enkidu Guest

    On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:38:33 GMT, (Jason M)
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:22:02 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>If you want to kill spam, start by killing a few spammers.

    >
    >Can someone explain why spam can't just be tracked back to the
    >originating IP address, or to a place where the originating IP has
    >been altered and the message relayed on?
    >Then one of those can go on a blacklist.
    >

    To some extent it can and does. The headers of the email include a
    chain of "Received:" headers. However these can be forged and may
    result in a misdiagnosis of the original sender. Secondly for a
    blacklist to work there would have to be a reliable, agreed on, source
    of a blacklist. Unfortunately the blacklist proponents and operators
    often have the subtlety of a tactical nuclear weapon and make a full
    scale religious crusade look like a vicarage garden tea party. There's
    a fair bit of misjudged registration of non-SPAM sources in
    blacklists. A non-SPAMming ISP may sell bandwidth to a smaller ISP,
    and the smaller ISP, through ignorance or intent, may allow SPAMmers
    to relay through them, with, in the end, the larger ISP being
    blacklisted. In short, it's still a mess but may sort itself out.
    Also, SPAMmers have been known to fight back and force black-list
    operators off the Internet.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    --

    The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
    that the conspiracy is working.
    Enkidu, Jan 27, 2004
    #8
  9. collector@

    Jason M Guest

    On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:26:33 +1300, Enkidu <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:38:33 GMT, (Jason M)
    >wrote:


    >>Can someone explain why spam can't just be tracked back to the
    >>originating IP address, or to a place where the originating IP has
    >>been altered and the message relayed on?
    >>Then one of those can go on a blacklist.
    >>

    >To some extent it can and does. The headers of the email include a
    >chain of "Received:" headers. However these can be forged and may
    >result in a misdiagnosis of the original sender.


    Then it's necessary to have a method of detecting forgeries.
    In the latest spam message that I have received there is just the one
    Received header before it reached Ihug, from IP 24.47.36.42 which I
    can't look up at the moment. If this has been forged and the forgery
    can't be detected, then whoever designed the email system made a
    really big stuffup and it needs to be fixed. It's ridiculous to delete
    spam at the receiving end, it should be stopped at its source.

    >Secondly for a
    >blacklist to work there would have to be a reliable, agreed on, source
    >of a blacklist. Unfortunately the blacklist proponents and operators
    >often have the subtlety of a tactical nuclear weapon and make a full
    >scale religious crusade look like a vicarage garden tea party. There's
    >a fair bit of misjudged registration of non-SPAM sources in
    >blacklists. A non-SPAMming ISP may sell bandwidth to a smaller ISP,
    >and the smaller ISP, through ignorance or intent, may allow SPAMmers
    >to relay through them, with, in the end, the larger ISP being
    >blacklisted. In short, it's still a mess but may sort itself out.


    If spam could be isolated to an IP number that should be blacklisted
    rather than the whole ISP. I've seen a blacklist that lists spamming
    IPs for just a few minutes, then increases the time listed if the spam
    continues. I can't remember where I saw that blacklist.

    >Also, SPAMmers have been known to fight back and force black-list
    >operators off the Internet.


    Yes I have read about that. A public boycott would help.
    Jason M, Jan 27, 2004
    #9
  10. On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:55:46 +0000, Jason M wrote:

    > If spam could be isolated to an IP number that should be blacklisted
    > rather than the whole ISP.


    Then the spam-friendly ISP just moves them around as the listings kick
    in/out.

    It's called whack-a-mole and has been around for nearly 10 years.

    > I've seen a blacklist that lists spamming
    > IPs for just a few minutes, then increases the time listed if the spam
    > continues. I can't remember where I saw that blacklist.


    Spamcop SCBL

    Spamhaus XBL (aka CBL)
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jan 27, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    (Jason M) wrote:

    >If spam could be isolated to an IP number that should be blacklisted
    >rather than the whole ISP.


    It could be a dial-up address. So if you blacklist it, the next innocent
    user to connect and be assigned that address could suffer.

    I once found myself unable to send mail to MacInTouch
    <http://www.macintouch.com/>. Turned out they'd blacklisted a whole
    range of addresses for sending spam, including the range being used for
    dialup by my ISP (Wave). Now I seriously doubt that Wave would tolerate
    spammers among its customers. But how was I supposed to be able to get
    in contact with MacInTouch to tell them to please unblock my ISP's IP
    addresses?

    Luckily I had an e-mail account at one of my clients, and I was able to
    contact them from there and get them to undo the block. But I could have
    ended up completely stuck...
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Feb 1, 2004
    #11
  12. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >>If spam could be isolated to an IP number that should be blacklisted
    >>rather than the whole ISP.

    > It could be a dial-up address. So if you blacklist it, the next innocent
    > user to connect and be assigned that address could suffer.


    heh, true.

    > I once found myself unable to send mail to MacInTouch
    > <http://www.macintouch.com/>. Turned out they'd blacklisted a whole
    > range of addresses for sending spam, including the range being used for
    > dialup by my ISP (Wave). Now I seriously doubt that Wave would tolerate
    > spammers among its customers. But how was I supposed to be able to get
    > in contact with MacInTouch to tell them to please unblock my ISP's IP
    > addresses?


    Phone?
    Free email address?
    txt?
    snail mail?

    There's four alternatives.

    > Luckily I had an e-mail account at one of my clients, and I was able to
    > contact them from there and get them to undo the block. But I could have
    > ended up completely stuck...


    admittedly it is kinda annoying, but it is *only* email...

    --
    Http://www.Dave.net.nz
    Play Hangman
    Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 1, 2004
    #12
  13. collector@

    Jason M Guest

    On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:22:59 +1300, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > (Jason M) wrote:
    >
    >>If spam could be isolated to an IP number that should be blacklisted
    >>rather than the whole ISP.

    >
    >It could be a dial-up address. So if you blacklist it, the next innocent
    >user to connect and be assigned that address could suffer.


    I am just suggesting a temporary blacklist, say for an hour or so,
    plus a message to the ISP to show them that they need to do something.
    If the ISP ignores it, the blacklist could be progressively longer,
    until the entire ISP is blocked whatever IP numbers they use.
    I have set my firewall to permanently block the Korean ISPs whose
    customers access my machine.
    Jason M, Feb 1, 2004
    #13
  14. collector@

    pbs Guest

    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:

    [snip]
    >> tolerate spammers among its customers. But how was I supposed to be
    >> able to get in contact with MacInTouch to tell them to please unblock
    >> my ISP's IP addresses?

    >
    > Phone?
    > Free email address?
    > txt?
    > snail mail?
    >
    > There's four alternatives.


    5) carrier pigeon, 6) shank's pony ...
    pbs, Feb 2, 2004
    #14
  15. collector@

    Peter KERR Guest


    > 5) carrier pigeon,


    must conform to RFC 1149
    Peter KERR, Feb 3, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    Peter KERR <> wrote:

    >> 5) carrier pigeon,

    >
    >must conform to RFC 1149


    "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers"
    <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1149.txt>
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Feb 3, 2004
    #16
  17. collector@

    Peter KERR Guest

    > >> 5) carrier pigeon,
    > >
    > >must conform to RFC 1149

    >
    > "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers"
    > <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1149.txt>


    a working demonstration of the technology can be seen at

    http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/
    Peter KERR, Feb 4, 2004
    #17
    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:
    531
    Hywel
    Apr 12, 2004
  2. Marvin Margoshes

    Re: Junk faxes, phone calls and spam are killing me!

    Marvin Margoshes, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    666
    Marvin Margoshes
    Jul 10, 2003
  3. Webkatz
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    695
    Webkatz
    Jul 10, 2003
  4. VH-MR2
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,106
  5. Clwddncr
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    633
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Feb 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page