11:06 p.m.
Hello you Ferdorans! (FedorIANS?...) I have a question,.....now....we
all know that there's ways to block unwanted email from your system
using Message Filters, and they work by blocking a certain domain or
email address and prevent them from hitting your Inbox, I would like to
know if anyone knows of a way to filter your messages in a sort of
"reverse" order.....in other words instead of me telling the Mail Filter
Rule: Block anything with the email address of (ABC@123) I would like it
to be "Allow everything from (123@ABC) and block "Everything Else"...how
would one go about doing this using Fedora 20 and Thunderbird? Any help
would be greatly appreciated
Thank You
EGO II
3:29 a.m.
On 12/28/2013 06:06 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
Hello you Ferdorans! (FedorIANS?...) I have a question,.....now....we
all know that there's ways to block unwanted email from your system
using Message Filters, and they work by blocking a certain domain or
email address and prevent them from hitting your Inbox, I would like to
know if anyone knows of a way to filter your messages in a sort of
"reverse" order.....in other words instead of me telling the Mail Filter
Rule: Block anything with the email address of (ABC@123) I would like it
to be "Allow everything from (123@ABC) and block "Everything Else"...how
would one go about doing this using Fedora 20 and Thunderbird? Any help
would be greatly appreciated
Thank You
EGO II
Hi Eddie,
if creating a message filter in TB, one of the rules can be: "contains"
or "doesn't contain" or "is" os "isn't", and you can
apply this for keys
like subject, body, and so on.
Is that what you mean?
Kind regards
Joachim Backes
--
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
Kernel-3.12.6-300.fc20.x86_64
Joachim Backes <joachim.backes(a)rhrk.uni-kl.de>
https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes
11:13 a.m.
On 12/28/2013 04:29 AM, Joachim Backes wrote:
On 12/28/2013 06:06 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> Hello you Ferdorans! (FedorIANS?...) I have a question,.....now....we
> all know that there's ways to block unwanted email from your system
> using Message Filters, and they work by blocking a certain domain or
> email address and prevent them from hitting your Inbox, I would like to
> know if anyone knows of a way to filter your messages in a sort of
> "reverse" order.....in other words instead of me telling the Mail Filter
> Rule: Block anything with the email address of (ABC@123) I would like it
> to be "Allow everything from (123@ABC) and block "Everything
Else"...how
> would one go about doing this using Fedora 20 and Thunderbird? Any help
> would be greatly appreciated
>
>
> Thank You
>
>
> EGO II
>
Hi Eddie,
if creating a message filter in TB, one of the rules can be: "contains"
or "doesn't contain" or "is" os "isn't", and you
can apply this for keys
like subject, body, and so on.
Is that what you mean?
Kind regards
Joachim Backes
Yes Joachim this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!..Thank you so much!
My Inbox seems to be growing every day with more and more spam. I
literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email addresses
to the "Block" list...and now that you've given me this knowledge, I
should just be able to let in what I need and everything else will get
tossed into the trash!..thanks so much! Happy New Year!!
EGO II
11:32 a.m.
On 28/12/13 12:13, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
>
Yes Joachim this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!..Thank you so
much! My Inbox seems to be growing every day with more and more spam.
I literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email
addresses to the "Block" list...and now that you've given me this
knowledge, I should just be able to let in what I need and everything
else will get tossed into the trash!..thanks so much! Happy New Year!!
EGO II
That's strange, all my mail comes through gmail and I rarely see any
spam unless I go in and look at what they've filtered out. I only use
Thunderbird filters to sort messages into categories/directories.
Bob
--
http://www.qrz.com/db/w2bod
Box10 Fedora-20/64bit Linux
12:23 p.m.
On 12/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 28/12/13 12:13, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
>>
> Yes Joachim this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!..Thank you so
> much! My Inbox seems to be growing every day with more and more spam.
> I literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email
> addresses to the "Block" list...and now that you've given me this
> knowledge, I should just be able to let in what I need and everything
> else will get tossed into the trash!..thanks so much! Happy New Year!!
>
>
> EGO II
That's strange, all my mail comes through gmail and I rarely see any
spam unless I go in and look at what they've filtered out. I only use
Thunderbird filters to sort messages into categories/directories.
Bob
Agreed... I check my Gmail spam folder about once a week to see if it
had any false positives. I gave up running my own mail server as Google
does a much better job.
--
-- Steve
1:12 p.m.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Steven Stern <
subscribed-lists(a)sterndata.com> wrote:
On 12/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>
> On 28/12/13 12:13, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
>>>
>> Yes Joachim this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!..Thank you so
>> much! My Inbox seems to be growing every day with more and more spam.
>> I literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email
>> addresses to the "Block" list...and now that you've given me this
>> knowledge, I should just be able to let in what I need and everything
>> else will get tossed into the trash!..thanks so much! Happy New Year!!
>>
>>
>> EGO II
>
> That's strange, all my mail comes through gmail and I rarely see any
> spam unless I go in and look at what they've filtered out. I only use
> Thunderbird filters to sort messages into categories/directories.
>
> Bob
>
>
Agreed... I check my Gmail spam folder about once a week to see if it
had any false positives. I gave up running my own mail server as Google
does a much better job.
--
-- Steve
--
I wonder what Google's secret is?
1:35 p.m.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:12:24AM -0800, Richard Vickery wrote:
I wonder what Google's secret is?
Most likely, a heavily customized version of SpamAssassin. Or if not
specifically SA, some other Baysean filter.
Which, incidentally, wouldn't be amiss in your own server.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
2:56 p.m.
On 12/28/2013 02:35 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:12:24AM -0800, Richard Vickery wrote:
> I wonder what Google's secret is?
Most likely, a heavily customized version of SpamAssassin. Or if not
specifically SA, some other Baysean filter.
Which, incidentally, wouldn't be amiss in your own server.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
Hmmm.......maybe I can do with a bit of reading up on Spam
Assassin....wonder if there's an Open Source version of it?...
EGO II
4:19 p.m.
Steven Stern:
> I check my Gmail spam folder about once a week to see if it had
any
> false positives. I gave up running my own mail server as Google does
> a much better job.
I've always considered having to check your spam for false positives to
make having anti-spam filtering a waste of time. Not to mention it
being a denial of service if it does snaffle up real mail.
Richard Vickery:
I wonder what Google's secret is?
Well, when you're a huge service, receiving thousands of spam, much of
it near-identical, and from common sources, it becomes much easier to
identify spam as being spam. And some services are better at that, when
they actually want to reduce spam, unlike some others that don't appear
to give a damn.
Even on a small self-run service, if you expose a honeypot address,
it'll get spammed along with the real addresses. Using the honeypot
received messages as spam identifiers, you can 100% identify identical
messages sent to the other addresses as being spam (unlike other far
less positive identification methods). That can knock out a huge amount
of spam, in a very simple, and reliable, way.
Other identifiers (HTML mail, attachments, bad grammar, broken mail
formatting, messages not personally addressed to you, et cetera),
falsely identify a horrible amount of real mail. And almost all
commercial mail that I have personally subscribed for gets falsely
identified, list mail gets it, mail from friends who couldn't type or
spell properly to save their life... To make it worse, when your mail
service provider does the identifying, they often give you no controls
to reign their anti-spam software in (you can't adjust the thresholds
and ratings, nor can you give it back spam and ham for it to learn).
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
2:29 a.m.
On 29.12.2013, Tim wrote:
I've always considered having to check your spam for false
positives to
make having anti-spam filtering a waste of time.
It depends. I've been receiving about 30 spam emails daily, on
average. A quick look into my spam-folder is enough to check if any
serious email accidently got classified as spam.
I'm using a combination of procmail and CRM-114, by the way..
2:58 a.m.
On 12/29/2013 3:29 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 29.12.2013, Tim wrote:
> I've always considered having to check your spam for false positives to
> make having anti-spam filtering a waste of time.
It depends. I've been receiving about 30 spam emails daily, on
average. A quick look into my spam-folder is enough to check if any
serious email accidently got classified as spam.
I'm using a combination of procmail and CRM-114, by the way..
Wow! 30 per day? Just wow! You must have a spam magnet or something. :-)
I use seven different accounts regularly and I don't get 20 in a month.
--
David
10:16 a.m.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:58:12AM -0500, David wrote:
Wow! 30 per day? Just wow! You must have a spam magnet or something.
:-)
I use seven different accounts regularly and I don't get 20 in a month.
Heh. Some people change accounts to get away from spam. I've used
the same couple of addresses since around 1993--when I got my domain.
I also have around 150 aliases (a bunch of general system aliases,
plus one for every client's support account).
It's not uncommon for SpamAssassin to catch 400-700 a *day*. When really
bad new campaigns start up, sometimes it can go over a thousand. Usually,
only 5-10 get through, whereupon I feed 'em to sa-learn.
And the filters have gotten good enough that I only spot check the rejects;
I've not found a false positive for months, if not years.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
3:25 p.m.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:16:19AM -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
........snip.......
It's not uncommon for SpamAssassin to catch 400-700 a *day*. When really
bad new campaigns start up, sometimes it can go over a thousand. Usually,
only 5-10 get through, whereupon I feed 'em to sa-learn.
Doesn't your ISP have spam filters or are you the ISP?
.........snip.........
--
Bob Holtzman
Your mail is being read by tight lipped
NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor
Strangelove
Key ID 8D549279
9:11 a.m.
Tim:
> I've always considered having to check your spam for false
positives to
> make having anti-spam filtering a waste of time.
Heinz Diehl:
It depends. I've been receiving about 30 spam emails daily, on
average. A quick look into my spam-folder is enough to check if any
serious email accidently got classified as spam.
I'm using a combination of procmail and CRM-114, by the way..
But you don't trust it enough, not to check...
If I had to check up on it, I don't consider it trustworthy. And,
probably more to the point, it's an extreme annoyance when you email
someone, and their crappy anti-spam software falsely classifies your
email as spam. Eventually you give up trying to get a reply from them,
and have to phone them for a response.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
10:22 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:41:40AM +1030, Tim wrote:
But you don't trust it enough, not to check...
Even as good as my SA rules are, I check on a spot basis.
If I had to check up on it, I don't consider it trustworthy.
Again I'll say--no matter how good any anti-spam software is, there
will ALWAYS be false positives. So on that basis, you don't like any of it?
The difference between using something like SpamAssassin and having no
anti-spam solution running is my having to sort through literally hundreds
of spam in my live inbox--effectively losing the use of E-Mail--without the
software, or only seeing a few get through, and just checking the
spambuckets periodically for false positives (and even then, I've scripts
to look for likely false positives.)
As a result, I have functional E-Mail, and am not afraid to keep the same
address for, literally, decades. Can you say the same?:
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
Ah; didn't think so.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
9:27 p.m.
Tim:
> If I had to check up on it, I don't consider it trustworthy.
Dave Ihnat:
Again I'll say--no matter how good any anti-spam software is,
there
will ALWAYS be false positives. So on that basis, you don't like any
of it?
If I have to double-check, what's the point of it? Seriously! How
different is that than just hitting delete on the way through reading
your mail?
I think I've been doing internet email for about a dozen years, now,
can't say I've ever found anti-spam convenient.
As a result, I have functional E-Mail, and am not afraid to keep the
sameaddress for, literally, decades. Can you say the same?:
> All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no
point
> trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
> public lists.
Ah; didn't think so.
That's my one, and only, anti-spam handler that I've used for the last
several years. This mailing list gets a special address. And, for what
it's worth, it's not just an anti-spam measure. I really do not desire
private messages from strangers. The warning is upfront about it.
My personal mail, which I think I've had for several years after getting
my own domain has no anti-spam handling, and needs none. And I have
another address that I have used on mailing lists, and that does get
spam, hence why I joined this list differently. But after taking these
measures, I only get about one spam a day.
On the other hand, if I used a spamable address on this mailing list, I
would need to use anti-spam software. And every anti-spam solution that
I've ever tried I consider to be utter crap and a pain to have to
constantly manage. It's *never* set and forget.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
11:16 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:57:52PM +1030, Tim wrote:
If I have to double-check, what's the point of it? Seriously!
How
different is that than just hitting delete on the way through reading
your mail?
Nothing--if you've only, say, 10 messages. If you're talking about dozens
or hundreds, it makes a difference. Seriously.
I think I've been doing internet email for about a dozen years,
now,
can't say I've ever found anti-spam convenient.
I've been a consultant for almost 40 years, and doing E-Mail for something
like 30. Among other things, I do civil forensic investigations--meaning
I incur the wrath of people who have a vested interest in getting back at
me. I most assuredly have found real anti-spam more than convenient.
And, for what it's worth, it's not just an anti-spam
measure.
I really do not desire private messages from strangers. The warning
is upfront about it.
*Shrug.* Your choice, of course.
On the other hand, if I used a spamable address on this mailing list,
I
would need to use anti-spam software. And every anti-spam solution that
I've ever tried I consider to be utter crap and a pain to have to
constantly manage. It's *never* set and forget.
It sounds to me like you don't care for anti-spam solutions, and as such
have never really investigated the viable options. I can understand your
sentiments, but don't agree with your conclusions. It's your choice, and I
respect that.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
7:20 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 29 December 2013, Dave Ihnat sent:
It sounds to me like you don't care for anti-spam solutions, and
as
such have never really investigated the viable options. I can
understand your sentiments, but don't agree with your conclusions.
It's your choice, and I respect that.
To summarise, and not drag this out more than it needs...
I've tried the uncontrollable anti-spam options offered by various mail
hosts (ISPs, Hotmail, et cetera). They get false positives that I can't
really do anything about, I can't accept that, at all. They get many
false negatives that make it just pointless to let them sort mail for
me. For remote filtering, you need to be able to control it (set your
own thresholds, rules and parameters), it needs a user interface. You
also need to be able to train it with spam/ham, and you can't really do
that with POP services, you need something like IMAP. Many don't offer
it.
I've tried bayesian filtering. You spend forever training it, it never
ends, and you still get false positives and negatives. I tried to speed
up the training, by giving the server access to a year's worth of stored
spam and ham, but it only partially helped.
I've tried spam assassin. But, again, you need to constantly tweak it.
Granted, it got better at getting rule updates with things like your
regular "yum update," but it still needed manual tweaking to improve it.
And the false positives were untenable.
False negatives are a nuisance, but false positives can lose you work.
If I don't see an email asking me about doing a job, I'm not going to
get that work.
In the end, after about a dozen years, no maybe I've been doing the
public internet since about 1997, I can't really remember, so it's a bit
longer, I've come to these conclusions:
Most of my spam came from my address being harvested from mailing lists
like this one (normal types of mailing lists, nothing weird that you'd
expect trouble from, and not ones full of flaming debates).
Next down the list was my addresses being harvested from PGP key
servers. Amusingly, or disturbingly, I could start or stop being sent
spam by adding or removing email addresses from the key. And about two
days later the change would occur. It took me a while to notice that,
because I hadn't updated the key in ages, then did it two or three times
in a short period, saw the change, did some more deliberate tests and
confirmed it.
I got a small amount of spam from my address being harvested from my
website. That was easily fixed, and without any captchas or
JavaScripting nonsense, both things that don't work for some browsers.
Lastly, I'd get maybe one spam every couple of months from some business
that I'd done business with via email.
I had my original email address until about a couple of years ago, I got
the hotmail and yahoo ones about one year after my first address. So
I've had a long time to assess this.
I pretty much ignore hotmail, I only have the address to chat with
friends over MSN, it's spam filtering is awful. Even when you set it to
only allow mail from your contact list, it'd still get random spam.
Yahoo's was used for pretty much the same reason (instant messaging
account), then I started using it, instead, for participating in several
computing oriented mailing lists, since they were hosted by Yahoo. As
Yahoo has improved whatever they've done over the years, and those lists
were subscriber only, I've seen the spam content wax and wane, over a
long time. But it's about one a day, on average, now.
When I joined this list, several years back, I thought I didn't want to
have another spam managing issue, and I had no desire for private mail
from strangers, so I subscribed with a self-deleting, mailbox. I don't
have to do anything to manage mail, other than press delete on a few
extra messages each session, that came from a different account. I
don't have to do anything to manage an anti-spam system.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
10:53 a.m.
On 29.12.2013, Tim wrote:
[CRM-114..]
But you don't trust it enough, not to check...
No. Because email loss is strictly not acceptable. I always check back
manually. CRM-114, once trained, is pretty good, and it takes no more
than 10-15 secs to see if there's "real" email amongst all the spam.
It's a lot more comfortable for me than sorting out/deleting all the
spam in my inbox.
If I had to check up on it, I don't consider it trustworthy.
And,
probably more to the point, it's an extreme annoyance when you email
someone, and their crappy anti-spam software falsely classifies your
email as spam.
Yes, it is. Thus, I read my spam-folder daily.
2:57 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:41:40AM +1030, Tim wrote:
Tim:
>> I've always considered having to check your spam for false positives to
>> make having anti-spam filtering a waste of time.
Heinz Diehl:
> It depends. I've been receiving about 30 spam emails daily, on
> average. A quick look into my spam-folder is enough to check if any
> serious email accidently got classified as spam.
>
> I'm using a combination of procmail and CRM-114, by the way..
But you don't trust it enough, not to check...
If I had to check up on it, I don't consider it trustworthy.
You don't entertain the possibility that not all spam filters are 100%
correct or that no software is 100% reliable, given the fact that it's
all developed by humans, none of whom are 100% infallible?
And,
probably more to the point, it's an extreme annoyance when you email
someone, and their crappy anti-spam software falsely classifies your
email as spam. Eventually you give up trying to get a reply from them,
and have to phone them for a response.
Did it ever cross your mind that the software might not be so crappy,
but that the user might not know how to write filters correctly?
I really get tired of people blaming the software, and yes, there is
some really crappy software out there but a program that has been in
widespread use for a long time has almost all the bugs fixed and ain't
all that crappy.
--
Bob Holtzman
Your mail is being read by tight lipped
NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor
Strangelove
Key ID 8D549279
9:37 p.m.
Tim:
> If I had to check up on it, I don't consider it trustworthy.
Robert Holtzman:
You don't entertain the possibility that not all spam filters are
100%
correct or that no software is 100% reliable, given the fact that it's
all developed by humans, none of whom are 100% infallible?
I don't care why it's unreliable, since I'm not trying to fix it.
Did it ever cross your mind that the software might not be so
crappy,
but that the user might not know how to write filters correctly?
I really get tired of people blaming the software, and yes, there is
some really crappy software out there but a program that has been in
widespread use for a long time has almost all the bugs fixed and ain't
all that crappy.
While it's true that some people can't their configure software, there's
plenty that just isn't configurable (no user options, or no client
interface to do so, the service provider just provides an on/off option
for filtering, as a whole). I'm certainly going to blame the tools,
when the tools *are* bad.
In the past, I've emailed friends, and my first or second posting has
gone into their spam bucket, without them doing anything about it.
e.g. Emailing a friend at their hotmail address, from a hotmail address.
The same with yahoo.
Sometimes the reasons are completely unfathomable, other times you can
see the anti-spam headers shovelled into the mail, and some of the
applied assessments are just plain ludicrous.
ISPs and major mail service providers are in a prime position to do
really effective spam filtering, yet few of them do a good job. But
that really is the best place to do the filtering, not on your own
personal PC, which has no access to the honeypot data a large server
has. Spam has made email horrible to use. Anti-spam solutions has made
it even worse.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
9:53 p.m.
On 12/29/2013 07:37 PM, Tim wrote:
In the past, I've emailed friends, and my first or second posting
has
gone into their spam bucket, without them doing anything about it.
I have a friend who's email service sporadically bounces my email. Why?
Because I own my own domain, I use my hosting company's email servers
instead of my ISP's and a small number of their customers are spammers.
Whenever their spam gets above a certain threshold, her ISP blocks any
email access from those servers, and cuts us off. This is why I dislike
blacklists: they're just about guaranteed to produce at least 99% false
positives because they're just an exercise in throwing the baby out with
the bath water.
10:08 p.m.
On 12/29/2013 10:53 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/29/2013 07:37 PM, Tim wrote:
> In the past, I've emailed friends, and my first or second posting has
> gone into their spam bucket, without them doing anything about it.
I have a friend who's email service sporadically bounces my email.
Why? Because I own my own domain, I use my hosting company's email
servers instead of my ISP's and a small number of their customers are
spammers. Whenever their spam gets above a certain threshold, her ISP
blocks any email access from those servers, and cuts us off. This is
why I dislike blacklists: they're just about guaranteed to produce at
least 99% false positives because they're just an exercise in throwing
the baby out with the bath water.
Well this is all fascinating to me. I'm not using a mail server, just
trying to keep the size of my Inbox down, since the more spam it gets
the fatter it gets as well....I will be looking into all possibilities
regarding this matter. I can now see that the "Allow In Just what I want
& Block All Others" is the more sensible way to go about it...instead of
trying to block what seems like millions of different email addresses
that sometimes have the same email in it.!!
EGO II
10:59 p.m.
On 12/30/2013 03:08 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 12/29/2013 10:53 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/29/2013 07:37 PM, Tim wrote:
>> In the past, I've emailed friends, and my first or second posting has
>> gone into their spam bucket, without them doing anything about it.
>
> I have a friend who's email service sporadically bounces my email.
> Why? Because I own my own domain, I use my hosting company's email
> servers instead of my ISP's and a small number of their customers are
> spammers. Whenever their spam gets above a certain threshold, her
> ISP blocks any email access from those servers, and cuts us off.
> This is why I dislike blacklists: they're just about guaranteed to
> produce at least 99% false positives because they're just an exercise
> in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Well this is all fascinating to me. I'm not using a mail server, just
trying to keep the size of my Inbox down, since the more spam it gets
the fatter it gets as well....I will be looking into all possibilities
regarding this matter. I can now see that the "Allow In Just what I
want & Block All Others" is the more sensible way to go about
it...instead of trying to block what seems like millions of different
email addresses that sometimes have the same email in it.!!
EGO II
I don't know if this may help but there is another possibility.
Much of my Inbox spam/annoying garbage emails used similar words such as
BANK, DEAR, Poor Widow, Best quality drugs, FDA approved, and any
emails written in all upper case, and so forth.
I set up 3 filters, Adverts, Scams, Stuff and in those set the Subject,
From, Body and To to Contains, then matched any of those to regularly
occurring 2 or 3 word groups then set Delete from Server then Send to
Trash. I have gone from hundred and more a day to almost none coming
through, any that do are in the trash and are deleted on exit.
I found, by matching to a small group of words rather than one word then
setting [Match any of the following] it has reduced garbage emails very
significantly.
I do sometimes let the ANZ, Westpac, National bank scams through but
that is so I can report these to Telstra/Bigpond and let them and the
bank handle it.
Occasionally I get scam/spam which after searching seems to come from a
genuine overseas web site. In that case I send the salient part of the
code to the web site admin and let them deal with it.
HTH
Roger
11:30 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 03:59:47PM +1100, Roger wrote:
I don't know if this may help but there is another possibility.
Much of my Inbox spam/annoying garbage emails used similar words
such as ...
True. But...
I set up 3 filters, ...
You're reinventing. Spamassassin has provision for all this, plus
Baysean identification, whitelists and blacklists, custom filters...
Everything you are trying to do, but much more mature and flexible.
There are other packages--for instance, for POP clients on supported
architectures (Windows Mac OS X, and cross-platform), POPFile works a
treat--but the bottom line is my mantra for the past number of years:
o In the old days, I had to write it myself.
o Today, if I want to do it, somebody has probably written something
to do it.
o If it exists, it probably exists in FOSS.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
12:30 p.m.
On 12/29/2013 11:59 PM, Roger wrote:
On 12/30/2013 03:08 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> On 12/29/2013 10:53 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>> On 12/29/2013 07:37 PM, Tim wrote:
>>> In the past, I've emailed friends, and my first or second posting has
>>> gone into their spam bucket, without them doing anything about it.
>>
>> I have a friend who's email service sporadically bounces my email.
>> Why? Because I own my own domain, I use my hosting company's email
>> servers instead of my ISP's and a small number of their customers
>> are spammers. Whenever their spam gets above a certain threshold,
>> her ISP blocks any email access from those servers, and cuts us
>> off. This is why I dislike blacklists: they're just about
>> guaranteed to produce at least 99% false positives because they're
>> just an exercise in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>
> Well this is all fascinating to me. I'm not using a mail server, just
> trying to keep the size of my Inbox down, since the more spam it gets
> the fatter it gets as well....I will be looking into all
> possibilities regarding this matter. I can now see that the "Allow In
> Just what I want & Block All Others" is the more sensible way to go
> about it...instead of trying to block what seems like millions of
> different email addresses that sometimes have the same email in it.!!
>
>
> EGO II
I don't know if this may help but there is another possibility.
Much of my Inbox spam/annoying garbage emails used similar words such
as BANK, DEAR, Poor Widow, Best quality drugs, FDA approved, and any
emails written in all upper case, and so forth.
I set up 3 filters, Adverts, Scams, Stuff and in those set the
Subject, From, Body and To to Contains, then matched any of those to
regularly occurring 2 or 3 word groups then set Delete from Server
then Send to Trash. I have gone from hundred and more a day to almost
none coming through, any that do are in the trash and are deleted on
exit.
I found, by matching to a small group of words rather than one word
then setting [Match any of the following] it has reduced garbage
emails very significantly.
I do sometimes let the ANZ, Westpac, National bank scams through but
that is so I can report these to Telstra/Bigpond and let them and the
bank handle it.
Occasionally I get scam/spam which after searching seems to come from
a genuine overseas web site. In that case I send the salient part of
the code to the web site admin and let them deal with it.
HTH
Roger
Now THIS sounds more like what I can do!...I mean it's not that I want
it to be perfect, but to have to sift through _so_ many junk mails just
to get to a REAL one?..I sometimes open my email client and sit for 25
minutes or MORE just hitting the "Delete" button! I swear if EVER I find
the person who invented spam?...I'm gonna hit him with a whiffle-ball
bat! LOL!
EGO II
12:47 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 13:30 -0500, Eddie G. O'Connor wrote:
I swear if EVER I find the person who invented spam?...I'm gonna
hit
him with a whiffle-ball bat! LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Siegel
12:46 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor sent:
I swear if EVER I find the person who invented spam?...I'm gonna
hit
him with a whiffle-ball bat! LOL!
And we'll be cheering, too.
On a whim, I once googled spammer beaten up, and read an amusing story
about a ten minute fist fight between a spammer in an internet cafe and
a policeman, with the spammer trying to avoid being arrested and trying
to eat his USB spam stick at the same time. Oh to be have been a fly on
the wall with that one.
And I seem to recall reading a Russian spammer got murdered over it.
Can't say I'm sorry.
I was once asked what it would take to stop a spammer, and my response
was "cut their hands off." I don't think anything less would be
effective.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
12:36 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 05:16:58PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor sent:
> I swear if EVER I find the person who invented spam?...I'm gonna hit
> him with a whiffle-ball bat! LOL!
And we'll be cheering, too.
On a whim, I once googled spammer beaten up, and read an amusing story
about a ten minute fist fight between a spammer in an internet cafe and
a policeman, with the spammer trying to avoid being arrested and trying
to eat his USB spam stick at the same time. Oh to be have been a fly on
the wall with that one.
And I seem to recall reading a Russian spammer got murdered over it.
Can't say I'm sorry.
I was once asked what it would take to stop a spammer, and my response
was "cut their hands off." I don't think anything less would be
effective.
A hollow point, judiciously applied, would be more efficient. It would,
however, deprive one of the pleasure of hearing the screams of agony.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
--
Bob Holtzman
Your mail is being read by tight lipped
NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor
Strangelove
Key ID 8D549279
7:42 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 29 December 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. sent:
this is all fascinating to me. I'm not using a mail server, just
trying to keep the size of my Inbox down, since the more spam it gets
the fatter it gets as well....I will be looking into all possibilities
regarding this matter. I can now see that the "Allow In Just what I
want & Block All Others" is the more sensible way to go about
it...instead of trying to block what seems like millions of different
email addresses that sometimes have the same email in it.!!
Playing with whitelisting is as annoying as managing anti-spam software.
You have to remember to whitelist anybody before you can communicate.
It gets worse if both sides do that.
I've come to the conclusion you need two or three addresses:
A personal one, that you don't bandy about on mailing lists. You pick
an account name that's peculiar enough that you won't get dictionary
attack mail (they make up addresses by putting words together that might
be in an email address, so make it something like a three or four word
address). You don't go bonkers with anti-spam solutions on this
address, or you'll lose mail from your friends, and lose contact with
them.
A separate address you use for things like mailing lists, or purchasing
things (i.e. an address that you will not need permanently). It will
get spammed, this is the one you set harsh rules on what will be
accepted. And if it gets mailbombed, you can abandon it and not lose
contact with friends and family.
A third address is one method of avoiding mailing list spam. You
subscribe to a list twice, with two addresses. You receive the mail on
one, reply with the other. You delete all mail received at the address
you reply from (set up an inbox rule that does it on the server). Other
users/list-harvesters only know about the address you post from, it's
the only address they see on mail from you, and that's the address that
they spam, but you never see it because you never look at its inbox
(pick a mail service to host it that deserves having to handle spam, or
wants to receive spam). The spammers don't know about the address you
receive the mail at, they can't deliberately spam it, because they don't
know its address, and if you pick an unusual account name, you don't
even get dictionary spam on it.
This works very well, for me. I get zero spam from participating in
this list. And, as an added bonus, if anybody is sending me spiteful
private mail, I have no idea that they're doing it.
Now, if all the lists I were interested in chatting with were on usenet
instead of mailing lists, I'd be in a lot better position. Usenet posts
don't come from an email address, they're posted to the usenet server in
a different way. The place where you *can* fill in a "from" address can
be filled in with bogus details, or a spam-trap address that you won't
read. And good usenet clients have much better routines for handling
large amounts of messages, archiving, ignoring, following threads, etc.
This mailing list can be accessed through a usenet interface at gmane,
but I don't really want to use a separate usenet and mail program every
day, and many combined clients aren't very good.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
11:24 p.m.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 07:53:53PM -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
I have a friend who's email service sporadically bounces my
email.
Why? Because I own my own domain, I use my hosting company's email
servers instead of my ISP's and a small number of their customers
are spammers. Whenever their spam gets above a certain threshold,
her ISP blocks any email access from those servers, and cuts us off.
It's called a shared server, and is one of the greatest complaints I get
from my clients. Essentially, ISPs in the past have often used the same
server to deliver E-Mail for multiple--often hundreds--of hosted clients.
As you've discovered, one bad neighbor will cause the shared server IP to
be blocked. Given the current state of SMTP protocol and the ability to
forge anything except the IP, there's nothing to do about this--there
is no better way to identify offenders.
The solution is to get a private IP from your ISP if they're hosting your
mail server. It usually costs a few dollars to do so, but guarantees
that your IP isn't tainted by others on the same server. (There are some
RBLs that reject by IP blocks, but most have fallen by the wayside over
time.)
This is why I dislike blacklists: they're just about guaranteed
to
produce at least 99% false positives because they're just an
exercise in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Most RBLs have options to request delisting, and even without that will
usually delist after a few hours unless there's a repeat report. Most ISPs
have an interest in clearing their servers from RBLs, and if notified that
one or more of their IP addresses are blocked will take steps to identify
and clear up shared host problems.
Yes, there are some RBLs that are "bad eggs". If they regularly provide
bad rejections, mailhosts stop using them. The worst problem is from
the major ISPs themselves--e.g., Yahoo, and most particularly Hotmail.
They maintain their own internal blacklists, don't give tools for
identification, and have horrible removal request/response policies.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
11:58 a.m.
On Sun, 2013-12-29 at 08:49 +1030, Tim wrote:
I've always considered having to check your spam for false
positives to
make having anti-spam filtering a waste of time.
I don't think so. The spam filtering system we use at work (based on
SpamAssassin with a web interface to view suspected spam) orders the
messages by spam score, so I really only need look at the first few, as
that is where all the false positives will be, and dozens more can be
just deleted. Certainly a lot better than sifting through dozens of
spams in my inbox every day. YMMV.
--Greg
1 p.m.
On 12/28/2013 01:12 PM, Richard Vickery wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Steven Stern
<subscribed-lists(a)sterndata.com <mailto:subscribed-lists@sterndata.com>>
wrote:
On 12/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>
> On 28/12/13 12:13, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
>>>
>> Yes Joachim this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!..Thank you so
>> much! My Inbox seems to be growing every day with more and more spam.
>> I literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email
>> addresses to the "Block" list...and now that you've given me
this
>> knowledge, I should just be able to let in what I need and everything
>> else will get tossed into the trash!..thanks so much! Happy New
Year!!
>>
>>
>> EGO II
>
> That's strange, all my mail comes through gmail and I rarely see any
> spam unless I go in and look at what they've filtered out. I only use
> Thunderbird filters to sort messages into categories/directories.
>
> Bob
>
>
Agreed... I check my Gmail spam folder about once a week to see if it
had any false positives. I gave up running my own mail server as Google
does a much better job.
--
-- Steve
--
I wonder what Google's secret is?
A huge base of mail, lots of engineers to throw at building tests, and
lots of compute power.
It can be done via spamassassin. I've successfully run large mail
systems based on clamav and spamassassin, but for my purposes, I'm
happy to let Google do it.
--
-- Steve
11:58 p.m.
On 12/28/2013 08:32 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
That's strange, all my mail comes through gmail and I rarely see
any
spam unless I go in and look at what they've filtered out. I only use
Thunderbird filters to sort messages into categories/directories.
SPAM is very subjective.
I saw users subscribing to several newsletters for an event (say XMas)
and then in February they're too lazy to cleanly unsubscribe: they just
tag the message as SPAM, and they argue it's SPAM because they dont want
to receive the messages anymore.
Dumb, but true.
--
+261 34 81 738 69
7:48 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Mihamina Rakotomandimby sent:
SPAM is very subjective.
I saw users subscribing to several newsletters for an event (say XMas)
and then in February they're too lazy to cleanly unsubscribe: they
just tag the message as SPAM, and they argue it's SPAM because they
dont want to receive the messages anymore.
Dumb, but true.
I've seen that often enough. When the "this is spam" button simply
configures their own software, it's merely a dumb thing to do. But when
their mail client's "spam button" *reports* the message as spam, it
causes problems for the senders, who did nothing wrong.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
3 p.m.
On 12/30/2013 08:48 AM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Mihamina Rakotomandimby
sent:
> SPAM is very subjective.
> I saw users subscribing to several newsletters for an event (say XMas)
> and then in February they're too lazy to cleanly unsubscribe: they
> just tag the message as SPAM, and they argue it's SPAM because they
> dont want to receive the messages anymore.
> Dumb, but true.
I've seen that often enough. When the "this is spam" button simply
configures their own software, it's merely a dumb thing to do. But when
their mail client's "spam button" *reports* the message as spam, it
causes problems for the senders, who did nothing wrong.
I'm not doing that though, I don't intentionally sign-up for anything
and the deliberately mark it as spam when I'm no longer interested.
Every mailing list I've joined I have a genuine interest in, or it's a
hobby of mine..(PremierGuitar.com.....GuitarFetish.com...etc) I see no
real way that my email address got out TO the people who are using it as
a spam receptacle! All I want is for the mail that I have no intention
of reading to be sent either to my spam folder...or else the trash! I
guess for now it'll have to be me adding addresses to my filter, until I
can get a handle on the Spam Assassin thing..or else I might have to
just block everything..and then create filters for the stuff I DO want!
but one way or the other...I intend on handling this spam issue before
the end of the year!! Thank you all for your input...some of those ideas
I'm definitely going to try out.....heck ANYTHING'S better than being
"strapped" to your computer for hours at a time!
EGO II
3:07 p.m.
On 12/30/2013 4:00 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor wrote:
On 12/30/2013 08:48 AM, Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Mihamina Rakotomandimby sent:
>> SPAM is very subjective.
>> I saw users subscribing to several newsletters for an event (say XMas)
>> and then in February they're too lazy to cleanly unsubscribe: they
>> just tag the message as SPAM, and they argue it's SPAM because they
>> dont want to receive the messages anymore.
>> Dumb, but true.
> I've seen that often enough. When the "this is spam" button simply
> configures their own software, it's merely a dumb thing to do. But when
> their mail client's "spam button" *reports* the message as spam, it
> causes problems for the senders, who did nothing wrong.
>
I'm not doing that though, I don't intentionally sign-up for anything
and the deliberately mark it as spam when I'm no longer interested.
Every mailing list I've joined I have a genuine interest in, or it's a
hobby of mine..(PremierGuitar.com.....GuitarFetish.com...etc) I see no
real way that my email address got out TO the people who are using it as
a spam receptacle! All I want is for the mail that I have no intention
of reading to be sent either to my spam folder...or else the trash! I
guess for now it'll have to be me adding addresses to my filter, until I
can get a handle on the Spam Assassin thing..or else I might have to
just block everything..and then create filters for the stuff I DO want!
but one way or the other...I intend on handling this spam issue before
the end of the year!! Thank you all for your input...some of those ideas
I'm definitely going to try out.....heck ANYTHING'S better than being
"strapped" to your computer for hours at a time!
EGO II
I see that you are using Thunderbird. You do know that TBird has a built
in Spam feature? It is named "Junk" in the account settings for each
account.
--
David
12:31 p.m.
On 12/30/2013 04:07 PM, David wrote:
On 12/30/2013 4:00 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 08:48 AM, Tim wrote:
>> Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Mihamina Rakotomandimby sent:
>>> SPAM is very subjective.
>>> I saw users subscribing to several newsletters for an event (say XMas)
>>> and then in February they're too lazy to cleanly unsubscribe: they
>>> just tag the message as SPAM, and they argue it's SPAM because they
>>> dont want to receive the messages anymore.
>>> Dumb, but true.
>> I've seen that often enough. When the "this is spam" button
simply
>> configures their own software, it's merely a dumb thing to do. But when
>> their mail client's "spam button" *reports* the message as spam,
it
>> causes problems for the senders, who did nothing wrong.
>>
> I'm not doing that though, I don't intentionally sign-up for anything
> and the deliberately mark it as spam when I'm no longer interested.
> Every mailing list I've joined I have a genuine interest in, or it's a
> hobby of mine..(PremierGuitar.com.....GuitarFetish.com...etc) I see no
> real way that my email address got out TO the people who are using it as
> a spam receptacle! All I want is for the mail that I have no intention
> of reading to be sent either to my spam folder...or else the trash! I
> guess for now it'll have to be me adding addresses to my filter, until I
> can get a handle on the Spam Assassin thing..or else I might have to
> just block everything..and then create filters for the stuff I DO want!
> but one way or the other...I intend on handling this spam issue before
> the end of the year!! Thank you all for your input...some of those ideas
> I'm definitely going to try out.....heck ANYTHING'S better than being
> "strapped" to your computer for hours at a time!
>
>
> EGO II
>
I see that you are using Thunderbird. You do know that TBird has a built
in Spam feature? It is named "Junk" in the account settings for each
account.
I have it "on"...and I would hope its working...but its just seems to me
that a LOT of spam is getting in....I dunno. I think I will be looking
into Spam Assassin for TB,...and will be customizing my Message
Filters...make some customized rules for this and then let it run. might
even create a new email account and only use it for the mailing lists
here and at CEntOS....thanks for all the info....advice...etc. And happy
New Year Everyone!!
EGO II
1:06 p.m.
On 1/1/2014 1:31 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 12/30/2013 04:07 PM, David wrote:
I have it "on"...and I would hope its working...but its just seems to me
that a LOT of spam is getting in....I dunno. I think I will be looking
into Spam Assassin for TB,...and will be customizing my Message
Filters...make some customized rules for this and then let it run. might
even create a new email account and only use it for the mailing lists
here and at CEntOS....thanks for all the info....advice...etc. And happy
New Year Everyone!!
EGO II
Like all spam filters, that I know of, you have to train it. You have to
mark emails as spam that you consider spam.
"Thunderbird and Junk / Spam Messages"
<https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/thunderbird-and-junk-spam-m...
You have a Gmail address and they have a filter system too. But you also
have to 'tweak' it from time to time.
Spam Assassin would be the same way I would think. I do not know of any
spam filter program that already knows what email that *you* consider to
be spam. Like virus scanners they look for patterns.
My suggestion, what I do, is to train Gmail as to what is spam. That way
you don't even download it.
As for TBird message filters. Those are designed to move messages that
you want from your inbox to various folders. This message, for me, goes
to <account_name>/Inbox/Fedora/Users
To try to do that with all of the My suggestion, what I do, is to train
Gmail as to what is spam. That way you don't even download it.am that
you say that you get would drive you crazy. :-)
--
David
1:36 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 02:06:41PM -0500, David wrote:
Like all spam filters, that I know of, you have to train it. You have
to
mark emails as spam that you consider spam.
Yep.
Spam Assassin would be the same way I would think. I do not know of
any
spam filter program that already knows what email that *you* consider to
be spam. Like virus scanners they look for patterns.
Yes. It learns pretty quickly; feed it the "probably spam" and "almost
certainly" spam files at first; eventually all you'll have to add is what
has slipped through.
If you don't want to get into system-wide spam scanning, and/or don't want
to get into the complexities of Spam Assassin, you can get a pretty good
Baysean filter with PopFILE for Linux.
As for TBird message filters. Those are designed to move messages
that
you want from your inbox to various folders. This message, for me, goes
to <account_name>/Inbox/Fedora/Users
You often use the message filter in conjunction with your anti-spam
solution--e.g., for PopFILE, have it modify the Subject line to include the
string "[spam]", and then filter on that.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
2:48 p.m.
On 1/1/2014 2:36 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 02:06:41PM -0500, David wrote:
> Like all spam filters, that I know of, you have to train it. You have to
> mark emails as spam that you consider spam.
Yep.
> Spam Assassin would be the same way I would think. I do not know of any
> spam filter program that already knows what email that *you* consider to
> be spam. Like virus scanners they look for patterns.
Yes. It learns pretty quickly; feed it the "probably spam" and "almost
certainly" spam files at first; eventually all you'll have to add is what
has slipped through.
If you don't want to get into system-wide spam scanning, and/or don't want
to get into the complexities of Spam Assassin, you can get a pretty good
Baysean filter with PopFILE for Linux.
> As for TBird message filters. Those are designed to move messages that
> you want from your inbox to various folders. This message, for me, goes
> to <account_name>/Inbox/Fedora/Users
You often use the message filter in conjunction with your anti-spam
solution--e.g., for PopFILE, have it modify the Subject line to include the
string "[spam]", and then filter on that.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat(a)dminet.com
I believe that I said earlier that I have several email accounts. Three
are company provided. One for 'general', one for my secretary, and one
for my foreman. Those three are all encrypted and never get any spam. I
have another for friends and family. Also encrypted too. I have another
that I use for online purchases. And I have the one that I use for
mailing lists and general online 'stuff'. That one, this one, is the
only one that ever gets any spam. Gmail catches most of them. 5-10 per
month. Last year I only had a total of about 100 and only one got all
the way to me.
Any one that get 'hundreds and hundreds a month', IMHO, is doing some
very wrongly.
--
David
2:50 p.m.
On 01/01/2014 02:06 PM, David wrote:
On 1/1/2014 1:31 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 04:07 PM, David wrote:
> I have it "on"...and I would hope its working...but its just seems to me
> that a LOT of spam is getting in....I dunno. I think I will be looking
> into Spam Assassin for TB,...and will be customizing my Message
> Filters...make some customized rules for this and then let it run. might
> even create a new email account and only use it for the mailing lists
> here and at CEntOS....thanks for all the info....advice...etc. And happy
> New Year Everyone!!
>
>
> EGO II
Like all spam filters, that I know of, you have to train it. You have to
mark emails as spam that you consider spam.
"Thunderbird and Junk / Spam Messages"
<https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/thunderbird-and-junk-spam-m...
You have a Gmail address and they have a filter system too. But you also
have to 'tweak' it from time to time.
Spam Assassin would be the same way I would think. I do not know of any
spam filter program that already knows what email that *you* consider to
be spam. Like virus scanners they look for patterns.
My suggestion, what I do, is to train Gmail as to what is spam. That way
you don't even download it.
As for TBird message filters. Those are designed to move messages that
you want from your inbox to various folders. This message, for me, goes
to <account_name>/Inbox/Fedora/Users
To try to do that with all of the My suggestion, what I do, is to train
Gmail as to what is spam. That way you don't even download it.am that
you say that you get would drive you crazy. :-)
Well thank you all for your
input...I've gotten Spam Assassin
installed....and now I'm going to play with it to see just how precise I
ca get it....I'll start off with the obvious stuff..(viagra.....online
pharmacy......erroneous dating sites, the million dollars I'm getting
from the UK Lottery, the car / boat / house I qualify to purchase....the
women who OBVIOUSLY want to date me from the
Ukraine...Germany....Spain..etc....and the free offers from anyone with
an internet connection and a computer!) then I'll try to work it towards
the other stuff! I'll be sure to let you all know how it goes!...
EGO II
3:07 p.m.
On 01/01/14 15:50, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
Well thank you all for your input...I've gotten Spam Assassin
installed....and now I'm going to play with it to see just how precise
I ca get it....I'll start off with the obvious
stuff..(viagra.....online pharmacy......erroneous dating sites, the
million dollars I'm getting from the UK Lottery, the car / boat /
house I qualify to purchase....the women who OBVIOUSLY want to date me
from the Ukraine...Germany....Spain..etc....and the free offers from
anyone with an internet connection and a computer!) then I'll try to
work it towards the other stuff! I'll be sure to let you all know how
it goes!...
EGO II
As I said a few days ago, I have been using gmail for five or six years
and never see any of the stuff you show above. There is something odd
about your gmail account or settings if it is not being filtered by gmail.
I rarely have to note anything as spam for the Thunderbird junk filter.
I do have a lot of filters to sort e-mail for my convenience in reading
it but spam is rarely a concern, all those "good deals" are removed as
spam by gmail. I have no need for spam assassin or anything like it ...
Bob
--
http://www.qrz.com/db/w2bod
Box10 Fedora-20/64bit Linux
3:12 p.m.
On 1/1/2014 3:50 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/01/2014 02:06 PM, David wrote:
> On 1/1/2014 1:31 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
>> On 12/30/2013 04:07 PM, David wrote:
>> I have it "on"...and I would hope its working...but its just seems to
me
>> that a LOT of spam is getting in....I dunno. I think I will be looking
>> into Spam Assassin for TB,...and will be customizing my Message
>> Filters...make some customized rules for this and then let it run. might
>> even create a new email account and only use it for the mailing lists
>> here and at CEntOS....thanks for all the info....advice...etc. And happy
>> New Year Everyone!!
>>
>>
>> EGO II
>
>
> Like all spam filters, that I know of, you have to train it. You have to
> mark emails as spam that you consider spam.
>
> "Thunderbird and Junk / Spam Messages"
>
>
<https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/thunderbird-and-junk-spam-m...
>
>
> You have a Gmail address and they have a filter system too. But you also
> have to 'tweak' it from time to time.
>
> Spam Assassin would be the same way I would think. I do not know of any
> spam filter program that already knows what email that *you* consider to
> be spam. Like virus scanners they look for patterns.
>
> My suggestion, what I do, is to train Gmail as to what is spam. That way
> you don't even download it.
>
> As for TBird message filters. Those are designed to move messages that
> you want from your inbox to various folders. This message, for me, goes
> to <account_name>/Inbox/Fedora/Users
>
> To try to do that with all of the My suggestion, what I do, is to train
> Gmail as to what is spam. That way you don't even download it.am that
> you say that you get would drive you crazy. :-)
Well thank you all for your input...I've gotten Spam Assassin
installed....and now I'm going to play with it to see just how precise I
ca get it....I'll start off with the obvious stuff..(viagra.....online
pharmacy......erroneous dating sites, the million dollars I'm getting
from the UK Lottery, the car / boat / house I qualify to purchase....the
women who OBVIOUSLY want to date me from the
Ukraine...Germany....Spain..etc....and the free offers from anyone with
an internet connection and a computer!) then I'll try to work it towards
the other stuff! I'll be sure to let you all know how it goes!...
EGO II
Good luck and have fun. Like I said *I* started with Gmail. That filters
the emails *before* they get downloaded to my email client.
--
David
6:32 a.m.
On 01/02/2014 12:12 AM, David wrote:
Good luck and have fun. Like I said*I* started with Gmail. That
filters
the emails*before* they get downloaded to my email client.
Yes but GMail *also* filters before your filters. So, you dont know what
is filtered (as you dont receive it), wether it's false positive or not.
8:32 a.m.
On 1/2/2014 7:32 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
On 01/02/2014 12:12 AM, David wrote:
> Good luck and have fun. Like I said *I* started with Gmail. That filters
> the emails *before* they get downloaded to my email client.
Yes but GMail *also* filters before your filters. So, you dont know what
is filtered (as you dont receive it), wether it's false positive or not.
That's the point isn't it? To not waste time downlowding trash to delete?
The emails marked as spam by Gmail are stored in the 'spam folder' aces
sable from your account. You have access to it and, if it a false
positive' you can change it.
However, as with 'many things "Linux" ' some of us tend to make really
simple tasks into major projects. :-)
--
David
8:50 a.m.
On 1/2/2014 9:36 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
On 01/02/2014 05:32 PM, David wrote:
> The emails marked as spam by Gmail are stored in the 'spam folder'
> aces sable from your account
Can you assume Google stores *all* the messages your are recipient in
the SPAM folder? With 0 messages discarded?
I wouldn't.
They are stored for 30 days. Any spam that hts today, Jan o2, will there
for 30 days. The same for spam on Jan 03. There for 30 days. May I ask
how often you check your local spam folder? Surely as often as that?
Once on a weekend is what I follow. It might take 5 minutes.
Gmail only filters for spam if you want it to do so. On or off.
--
David
8:34 a.m.
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 15:32:49 +0300
Mihamina Rakotomandimby <mihamina(a)rktmb.org> wrote:
On 01/02/2014 12:12 AM, David wrote:
> Good luck and have fun. Like I said*I* started with Gmail. That
> filters the emails*before* they get downloaded to my email client.
Yes but GMail *also* filters before your filters. So, you dont know
what is filtered (as you dont receive it), wether it's false positive
or not.
You can stop gmail filering spam if you want.
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
12:43 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor sent:
Every mailing list I've joined I have a genuine interest in, or
it's a
hobby of mine..(PremierGuitar.com.....GuitarFetish.com...etc) I see no
real way that my email address got out TO the people who are using it
as a spam receptacle! All I want is for the mail that I have no
intention of reading to be sent either to my spam folder...or else the
trash!
Ways of getting spam (and there's plenty more):
The mailing list gets hacked into, and someone steals your address.
The mailing list sells your details.
You've entered your address in somewhere (e.g. program registration),
and that has leaked your address.
You use your address in more than one place, one of them is public (like
this list), and it's been harvested from there.
You've received random spam.
If you had a used-for-list-only address, you can filter that separately
than any other address. Just whitelist the lists you'll accept mail on
it from. There's probably only a few, it's much easier to set rules to
accept mail from A or B or C, than to block from A, B, ... to infinity.
And with mailing lists, there's usually list headers in the mail, that
are better choices for setting rules against, than the list email
addresses, themselves.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
2:09 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:00:02PM -0500, Eddie G. O'Connor wrote:
On 12/30/2013 08:48 AM, Tim wrote:
>Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2013, Mihamina Rakotomandimby sent:
>>SPAM is very subjective.
>>I saw users subscribing to several newsletters for an event (say XMas)
>>and then in February they're too lazy to cleanly unsubscribe: they
>>just tag the message as SPAM, and they argue it's SPAM because they
>>dont want to receive the messages anymore.
>>Dumb, but true.
>I've seen that often enough. When the "this is spam" button simply
>configures their own software, it's merely a dumb thing to do. But when
>their mail client's "spam button" *reports* the message as spam, it
>causes problems for the senders, who did nothing wrong.
>
I'm not doing that though, I don't intentionally sign-up for
anything and the deliberately mark it as spam when I'm no longer
interested. Every mailing list I've joined I have a genuine interest
in, or it's a hobby of
mine..(PremierGuitar.com.....GuitarFetish.com...etc) I see no real
way that my email address got out TO the people who are using it as
a spam receptacle!
You see no real way? If you post to a list or news group your email
address is out there for the bots to harvest. Your address or your IP is
in your headers even if you spoof it.
All I want is for the mail that I have no
intention of reading to be sent either to my spam folder...or else
the trash! I guess for now it'll have to be me adding addresses to
my filter, until I can get a handle on the Spam Assassin thing..or
else I might have to just block everything..and then create filters
for the stuff I DO want! but one way or the other...I intend on
handling this spam issue before the end of the year!! Thank you all
for your input...some of those ideas I'm definitely going to try
out.....heck ANYTHING'S better than being "strapped" to your
computer for hours at a time!
Your best bet is procmail + spam assassin. The trick is to call SA from
sendmail, postfix or whatever you have on your system. If you call it
from procmailrc the downloads will slow to a crawl.
--
Bob Holtzman
Your mail is being read by tight lipped
NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor
Strangelove
Key ID 8D549279
12:20 p.m.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:13:24PM -0500, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
.......snip......
>
Yes Joachim this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!..Thank you so
much! My Inbox seems to be growing every day with more and more
spam. I literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email
addresses to the "Block" list
Blocking email addresses is completely futile. Are you not aware that
spammers use throw away accounts that are frequently changed and also
use innocent users computers as bots without the owners knowledge?
.......snip.......
--
Bob Holtzman
Your mail is being read by tight lipped
NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor
Strangelove
Key ID 8D549279
11:54 p.m.
On 12/28/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email
addresses to the "Block" list...
Do you know that a big ratio of SPAM are with forged sender address?
Just try it in Thunderbird: manage identities, add, and setup a fake sender.
You'll see that it's very simple to send an EMail with a fake identity.
While you're blocking on the sender basis, you're likely to miss many
important things.
On the other hand, if you are whitelisting a bunch of known adresses, if
the SPAM is forged with those, you will still continue to get SPAM.
--
+261 34 81 738 69
12:42 p.m.
On 12/30/2013 12:54 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
On 12/28/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> I literally spent a whole hour and a half ...JUST adding email
> addresses to the "Block" list...
Do you know that a big ratio of SPAM are with forged sender address?
Just try it in Thunderbird: manage identities, add, and setup a fake
sender.
You'll see that it's very simple to send an EMail with a fake identity.
While you're blocking on the sender basis, you're likely to miss many
important things.
On the other hand, if you are whitelisting a bunch of known adresses,
if the SPAM is forged with those, you will still continue to get SPAM.
So then?...there really isn't a way to have a "virgin" mailbox in
Thunderbird?...I'm wondering if Spam Assassin will help?...gonna have to
do some reading!..
EGO II
9:01 p.m.
On 28.12.2013 06:06, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
Hello you Ferdorans! (FedorIANS?...) I have a question,.....now....we
all know that there's ways to block unwanted email from your system
using Message Filters, and they work by blocking a certain domain or
email address and prevent them from hitting your Inbox, I would like to
know if anyone knows of a way to filter your messages in a sort of
"reverse" order.....in other words instead of me telling the Mail Filter
Rule: Block anything with the email address of (ABC@123) I would like it
to be "Allow everything from (123@ABC) and block "Everything Else"...how
would one go about doing this using Fedora 20 and Thunderbird? Any help
would be greatly appreciated
Hello LOLian! :)
For someone who uses Gmail, a whitelist can be done like this:
- Settings
- Filters
- Create a new filter
From: felix@thecat OR winnie@thepooh OR rocky@andbullwinkle
- Create filter with this search
- Never send it to Spam
- Create filter
Done.
Advanced search operators
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7190?hl=en
poma
3764
days inactive
3769
days old
56 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Bob Goodwin -
Bob Holtzman -
Dave Ihnat -
David -
EGO-II.1 -
Frank Murphy -
Greg Woods -
Heinz Diehl -
Joachim Backes -
Joe Zeff -
Mihamina Rakotomandimby -
poma -
Richard Vickery -
Roger -
SternData -
Tim