Thunderbird -how to block this particular spam

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by tonyjeffs, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. tonyjeffs

    tonyjeffs Guest

    I'm fairly new to Thunderbird and am impressed with it.
    There is one specific form of spam that I can't filter:
    It comprises a 'picture of text' giving advice on the stockmarket,
    followed by random text. The sender title and headers are different
    every time, so there's nothing consistent that i can see to use in a
    filter.
    Any ideas?

    Thanks
    Tony
     
    tonyjeffs, Oct 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tonyjeffs

    Guest

    On 25 Oct 2006 03:26:46 -0700, "tonyjeffs" <>
    wrote:

    >I'm fairly new to Thunderbird and am impressed with it.
    >There is one specific form of spam that I can't filter:
    >It comprises a 'picture of text' giving advice on the stockmarket,
    >followed by random text. The sender title and headers are different
    >every time, so there's nothing consistent that i can see to use in a
    >filter.
    >Any ideas?
    >
    >Thanks
    >Tony


    You and everyone else it seems.
    My ISP has a blocker and they did not catch these either. Looking at
    the headers these always come from outside the USA. I think my ISP
    finally found a way because these spams recently stopped. Prior to
    that, I blocked ALL attachments such as .GIF files, but i kept getting
    the random text portions which are nothing but words that mean nothing
    at all. Very annoying. At one point I asked them if there was a way to
    block all mail from outside the USA but they said they could not. I
    hope they finally solved this.
     
    , Oct 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > On 25 Oct 2006 03:26:46 -0700, "tonyjeffs" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I'm fairly new to Thunderbird and am impressed with it.
    >> There is one specific form of spam that I can't filter:
    >> It comprises a 'picture of text' giving advice on the stockmarket,
    >> followed by random text. The sender title and headers are different
    >> every time, so there's nothing consistent that i can see to use in a
    >> filter.
    >> Any ideas?
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> Tony

    >
    > You and everyone else it seems.
    > My ISP has a blocker and they did not catch these either. Looking at
    > the headers these always come from outside the USA. I think my ISP
    > finally found a way because these spams recently stopped. Prior to
    > that, I blocked ALL attachments such as .GIF files, but i kept getting
    > the random text portions which are nothing but words that mean nothing
    > at all. Very annoying. At one point I asked them if there was a way to
    > block all mail from outside the USA but they said they could not. I
    > hope they finally solved this.
    >



    Au contraire. Junk Mail Controls handles these type of spam quite easily.

    As I just proved for someone else on this group, my JMC is catching the
    spam he is having problems with. My JMC is running at about 99.8% catch
    ratio (i.e. for every 200 spam I get, one makes it to my inbox)

    If your JMC is not performing at that level, then its time to take a
    good look at it. What is the size of your training.dat file (its in your
    profile).
     
    Mozilla Champion (Dan), Oct 27, 2006
    #3
  4. On 2006-10-27, Mozilla Champion (Dan) <> wrote:

    > As I just proved for someone else on this group, my JMC is catching the
    > spam he is having problems with. My JMC is running at about 99.8% catch
    > ratio (i.e. for every 200 spam I get, one makes it to my inbox)


    Couple JMC to pamassassin and you ought to get an order of magnitude
    improvement in your spam catching!

    --

    John ()
     
    John Thompson, Oct 29, 2006
    #4
  5. John Thompson wrote:
    > On 2006-10-27, Mozilla Champion (Dan) <> wrote:
    >
    >> As I just proved for someone else on this group, my JMC is catching the
    >> spam he is having problems with. My JMC is running at about 99.8% catch
    >> ratio (i.e. for every 200 spam I get, one makes it to my inbox)

    >
    > Couple JMC to pamassassin and you ought to get an order of magnitude
    > improvement in your spam catching!
    >



    Really? How would you improve 99.8% by an order of magnitude?

    For every 200 spam sent to me, I see 1 in my inbox. I doubt if adding
    Spamassassin to the mix would improve that result at all.

    And since you, to get the benefit of both, have to go thru the
    spamassassin catch and mark them with JMC, it takes MORE time to boot!

    Whats the benefit of spamassassin if you have to go through and mark
    them as Junk anyway? Mark them as junk WITHOUT spamassassin, and in time
    you wont have to.

    Is YOUR combination of Spamassassin and JMC catching better than 99.8
    percent?
     
    Mozilla Champion (Dan), Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. On 2006-10-29, Mozilla Champion (Dan) <> wrote:
    > John Thompson wrote:
    >>
    >> Couple JMC to pamassassin and you ought to get an order of magnitude
    >> improvement in your spam catching!

    >
    > Really? How would you improve 99.8% by an order of magnitude?


    By getting 99.98% of the spam?

    > For every 200 spam sent to me, I see 1 in my inbox. I doubt if adding
    > Spamassassin to the mix would improve that result at all.


    Outy of more than 700 spams, I get only one false negative. Not quite
    "an order of magnitude" improvement, I guess, but pretty close.

    > And since you, to get the benefit of both, have to go thru the
    > spamassassin catch and mark them with JMC, it takes MORE time to boot!


    I run spamassassin on a separate machine, which serves mail to my home
    network. It is very seldom rebooted (runs FreeBSD) so boot time is not
    an issue.

    > Whats the benefit of spamassassin if you have to go through and mark
    > them as Junk anyway? Mark them as junk WITHOUT spamassassin, and in time
    > you wont have to.


    I don't strictly *have* to mark them as spam for the JMC, since
    spamassassin has already done so, but as long as I'm reviewing what went
    into the Junk folder, it's not a terrible burden to do so anyway.

    > Is YOUR combination of Spamassassin and JMC catching better than 99.8
    > percent?


    Yes.

    --

    John ()
     
    John Thompson, Oct 31, 2006
    #6
  7. John Thompson wrote:
    > On 2006-10-29, Mozilla Champion (Dan) <> wrote:
    >> John Thompson wrote:
    >>> Couple JMC to pamassassin and you ought to get an order of magnitude
    >>> improvement in your spam catching!

    >> Really? How would you improve 99.8% by an order of magnitude?

    >
    > By getting 99.98% of the spam?


    Incorrect: an order of magnitude would see you catch 999% of spam, an
    inrease from 99.8 to 99.98 is not a 'order of magnitude', its a simple
    incremental increase.
    >
    >> For every 200 spam sent to me, I see 1 in my inbox. I doubt if adding
    >> Spamassassin to the mix would improve that result at all.

    >
    > Outy of more than 700 spams, I get only one false negative. Not quite
    > "an order of magnitude" improvement, I guess, but pretty close.


    Okay, lets see, out of the last 2000 spams I havent had a false postive
    so what improvement do I need?

    >
    >> And since you, to get the benefit of both, have to go thru the
    >> spamassassin catch and mark them with JMC, it takes MORE time to boot!

    >
    > I run spamassassin on a separate machine, which serves mail to my home
    > network. It is very seldom rebooted (runs FreeBSD) so boot time is not
    > an issue.


    Well, I dont run seperate machines and neither do most people.
    >
    >> Whats the benefit of spamassassin if you have to go through and mark
    >> them as Junk anyway? Mark them as junk WITHOUT spamassassin, and in time
    >> you wont have to.

    >
    > I don't strictly *have* to mark them as spam for the JMC, since
    > spamassassin has already done so, but as long as I'm reviewing what went
    > into the Junk folder, it's not a terrible burden to do so anyway.
    >
    >> Is YOUR combination of Spamassassin and JMC catching better than 99.8
    >> percent?

    >
    > Yes.
    >


    So what is your combination catching?
     
    Mozilla Champion (Dan), Oct 31, 2006
    #7
    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. Stefano
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,429
    Moz Champion
    Feb 9, 2005
  2. zeeeej
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,973
    zeeeej
    Jan 23, 2006
  3. C A Preston

    Spam-Spam and more Spam

    C A Preston, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    627
    Hywel
    Apr 12, 2004
  4. tonyjeffs
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    6,942
    Mozilla Champion (Dan)
    Nov 13, 2006
  5. Clwddncr
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    716
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Feb 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page