|
Donations |
|
 |
|
|
|
If you found this site helpful, please donate to help keep it online
Don't want to use PayPal? Try our physical address
|
|
|
Survey |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bobgove
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:32 pm Post subject: spam from me |
|
|
I don't send spam, yet I am getting it from me. Bouncing it sends a message to me that the mail was not deliverable.
So I am left with the conclusion that bouncing does no good. It just goes to whomever the spammers use.
Using mailwasher pro deletes unwanted spam, but if the goal is to return it to the spammers, then I need to look for another solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Perry
Lieutenant
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Posts: 291
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: spam from me |
|
|
| bobgove wrote: |
I don't send spam, yet I am getting it from me. Bouncing it sends a message to me that the mail was not deliverable.
So I am left with the conclusion that bouncing does no good. It just goes to whomever the spammers use.
Using mailwasher pro deletes unwanted spam, but if the goal is to return it to the spammers, then I need to look for another solution. |
The goal should be to absorb it and make it invisible to the user.
Don't bother bouncing true spam. If you bounce bounce only messages that need attention such as improper addressing from a business, etc.
By bouncing to a spammer you not only have proved your existence, you have given them the keys to your apartment, especially if you use a static address.
Perry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ikeb
General
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 3555
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
And here I thought there was an actual B9 suggestion to look at!  
_________________
I like SPAM ... on my sandwich! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perry
Lieutenant
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Posts: 291
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ikeb wrote: |
| And here I thought there was an actual B9 suggestion to look at! |
There is, combine the two products together to make one, make filters a lot easier.
Perry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ikeb
General
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 3555
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Perry wrote: |
| Ikeb wrote: |
| And here I thought there was an actual B9 suggestion to look at! |
There is, combine the two products together to make one, make filters a lot easier.
|
Finally! A suggestion! 
How does "making filters a lot easier" relate to B9 though?
_________________
I like SPAM ... on my sandwich!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimeGhost
Captain
Joined: Apr 11, 2003
Posts: 650
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because B9 strips HTML, you can filter this kind of content easily:
s<setjst>p<sryjsry>a<srjtngsry>m |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perry
Lieutenant
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Posts: 291
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimeGhost wrote: |
Because B9 strips HTML, you can filter this kind of content easily:
s<setjst>p<sryjsry>a<srjtngsry>m |
Yep, thats the idea. The problem comes in however if you filter it out it, how do you control what you don't want to filter for various accounts or situations?
To me that means that it needs to be very closely tied to it, the functions integrated more as a separate filter to MWP instead of a front into it.
Possibly in this way, an option on each filter to filter HTML content prior to testing.
Maybe some pass though options would be good for certain accounts.
Now are we looking at MWP proxy or B9 server types of functions?
To me it just means integration regardless of which direction MWP takes.
Perry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ikeb
General
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 3555
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TimeGhost wrote: |
Because B9 strips HTML, you can filter this kind of content easily:
s<setjst>p<sryjsry>a<srjtngsry>m |
B9 doesn't do that! B9 leaves the HTML tags but examines links, images etc. for spyware type stuff. This program aims to cleanse the messages I choose to accept, rather than delete the messages I choose to reject.
Actually, stripping HTML is child's play! MWP should have that filtering capability irregardless of it's association/integration with B9.
I find it remarkable that we focus so much attention to SPAM detection (i.e the stuff we turn away at the door) yet B9's cleansing of the stuff we choose to "bring into our homes" receives almost no attention whatsoever. 
_________________
I like SPAM ... on my sandwich!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ikeb
General
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 3555
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Perry wrote: |
The problem comes in however if you filter it out it, how do you control what you don't want to filter for various accounts or situations?
To me that means that it needs to be very closely tied to it, the functions integrated more as a separate filter to MWP instead of a front into it. |
Does not compute. MWP takes care of the messages arriving at my door. If I choose to let them in, B9 takes it from there. Two distinct purposes in life; two different sets of functionmality.
| Perry wrote: |
| Possibly in this way, an option on each filter to filter HTML content prior to testing. |
If you're referring to MWP filtering (or lack thereof), absolutely needed ... but no need to integrate B9 for such a trivial task.
| Perry wrote: |
Maybe some pass though options would be good for certain accounts.
Now are we looking at MWP proxy or B9 server types of functions?
To me it just means integration regardless of which direction MWP takes.
|
IMO, MWP needs to become a proxy irrespective of whether B9 is integrated. I see "integration - yes/no" as a purely marketing decision. It seems to me that you're stuck in the technology rut (i.e what would make this simpler to do, how do we get it done) rather than thinking about what purpose it serves to the customer.
_________________
I like SPAM ... on my sandwich!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perry
Lieutenant
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Posts: 291
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
TimeGhost wrote:
Because B9 strips HTML, you can filter this kind of content easily:
s<setjst>p<sryjsry>a<srjtngsry>m
|
| Quote: |
B9 doesn't do that! B9 leaves the HTML tags but examines links, images etc. for spyware type stuff. This program aims to cleanse the messages I choose to accept, rather than delete the messages I choose to reject.
|
May want to launch B9 again and take a look at the function about converting to plain text in both attachments and in the message body.
| Quote: |
Actually, stripping HTML is child's play! MWP should have that filtering capability irregardless of it's association/integration with B9.
|
Some seem to find it a little difficult to do just HTML tags and avoid simple math equations.
| Quote: |
I find it remarkable that we focus so much attention to SPAM detection (i.e the stuff we turn away at the door) yet B9's cleansing of the stuff we choose to "bring into our homes" receives almost no attention whatsoever.
|
I think it gets a lot of attention, enough that others would like to incorporate much of what it does for use in Spam detection. I find it more remarkable that we seem to ignore these capabilities and the r&d that has already gone into a product that can be used in another by the same company.
| Perry wrote: |
The problem comes in however if you filter it out it, how do you control what you don't want to filter for various accounts or situations?
To me that means that it needs to be very closely tied to it, the functions integrated more as a separate filter to MWP instead of a front into it. |
| Quote: |
Does not compute. MWP takes care of the messages arriving at my door. If I choose to let them in, B9 takes it from there. Two distinct purposes in life; two different sets of functionmality.
|
Which is the current problem. B9 only works after the fact and MWP doesn't really work well at filtering html, even for the purpose of applying a filter to the message.
| Perry wrote: |
| Possibly in this way, an option on each filter to filter HTML content prior to testing. |
| Quote: |
If you're referring to MWP filtering (or lack thereof), absolutely needed ... but no need to integrate B9 for such a trivial task.
|
Doesn't seem like such a trivial task to do using standard filters, at least not reliably. A lot easier to filter pre-cleaned messages, just don't want to toss all away with it. In this case however the company already owns the code necessary for intergration. This doesn't mean that B9 can not continue to exist like it does now, just that MWP needs to have a better way to handle html content since so much of the spam employs it.
| Perry wrote: |
Maybe some pass though options would be good for certain accounts.
Now are we looking at MWP proxy or B9 server types of functions?
To me it just means integration regardless of which direction MWP takes.
|
| Quote: |
IMO, MWP needs to become a proxy irrespective of whether B9 is integrated. I see "integration - yes/no" as a purely marketing decision. It seems to me that you're stuck in the technology rut (i.e what would make this simpler to do, how do we get it done) rather than thinking about what purpose it serves to the customer. |
Actually maybe we should look at brand x again as a model here. In brand x some accounts can be proxies, others work like MWP does on the server, however all have the ability of handling html in the same way as B9 does regardless of the method.
If you were to make MWP a pure proxy, then that would be very nice for the home user, however you just shot the business user down since you are no longer working on the mail at the ISP which is where he may be doing most of his work, in a remote atmosphere. If you have it exist just like it does now, then the home user is somewhat limited in what can be done with his mail, it is completely dependant on the ISP, some you would not be able to drop a message back into play that was previously deleted. It is very important to many to be able to recover lost messages.
Perry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ikeb
General
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 3555
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Perry wrote: |
May want to launch B9 again and take a look at the function about converting to plain text in both attachments and in the message body.
|
Whoops! Got me there Perry. I'd forgotten that B9 could do that.
| Perry wrote: |
Some seem to find it a little difficult to do just HTML tags and avoid simple math equations.
|
Right. Using single pass regular expressions.
| Perry wrote: |
| ikeb wrote: |
I find it remarkable that we focus so much attention to SPAM detection (i.e the stuff we turn away at the door) yet B9's cleansing of the stuff we choose to "bring into our homes" receives almost no attention whatsoever.
|
I think it gets a lot of attention, enough that others would like to incorporate much of what it does for use in Spam detection.
|
B9 gets a lot of attention? Then why don't I see much traffic in this forum?
| Perry wrote: |
| Doesn't seem like such a trivial task to do using standard filters, at least not reliably. A lot easier to filter pre-cleaned messages, just don't want to toss all away with it. In this case however the company already owns the code necessary for intergration. This doesn't mean that B9 can not continue to exist like it does now, just that MWP needs to have a better way to handle html content since so much of the spam employs it. |
No disagreement here. It looks like we're in violent agreement. 
| Perry wrote: |
Actually maybe we should look at brand x again as a model here. In brand x some accounts can be proxies, others work like MWP does on the server, however all have the ability of handling html in the same way as B9 does regardless of the method.
If you were to make MWP a pure proxy, then that would be very nice for the home user, however you just shot the business user down since you are no longer working on the mail at the ISP which is where he may be doing most of his work, in a remote atmosphere. If you have it exist just like it does now, then the home user is somewhat limited in what can be done with his mail, it is completely dependant on the ISP, some you would not be able to drop a message back into play that was previously deleted. It is very important to many to be able to recover lost messages. |
Sure thing. But all of this is really MWP suggestion stuff and has nothing to do with improving B9.
_________________
I like SPAM ... on my sandwich!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perry
Lieutenant
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Posts: 291
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ikeb wrote: |
| Sure thing. But all of this is really MWP suggestion stuff and has nothing to do with improving B9. |
My number one suggestion - improve the Mickey Mouse interface. Some talk about the lack of font control in Mail Washer, etc. but then we have this interface which looks totally out of place in a windowing environment.
Functional, maybe, just that it really lacks in many places and needs to be cleaned up.
That said one thing I think is missing in both utilities is that for the non-home user, the interface would not really matter nearly as much if you had better ways of hooking into it with other utilites. For example where I work we would probably just use other utilities to provide the interface to logs, filters, and so on, but then the core program would be able to update itself based on updates to its external files. In MWP, and I think it could apply here as well, with the filter example one could make a far better external interface then Firetrust could ever do with an internal one. The internal one has to be functional, especially for the non-business user, but the business user would have one more custom tailored to the business at hand.
I would like to see some of this give us the features that REXX has.
Perry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ikeb
General
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 3555
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Perry wrote: |
| My number one suggestion - improve the Mickey Mouse interface. Some talk about the lack of font control in Mail Washer, etc. but then we have this interface which looks totally out of place in a windowing environment. |
What would be a couple of examples where the interface is "totally out of place"?
| Perry wrote: |
| Functional, maybe, just that it really lacks in many places and needs to be cleaned up. |
So you think B9 has all the functions required?
In my case, I'm not happy with how B9 IDs message changes (found in the logs). I'd like to know more as to what B9 parses and why (i.e. more than that given when 'Show explanations' is checked). Currently there's not even a help function that could explain this (Yes it does pull up a web page but it doesn't allow me to search for specific topics etc. the way a Windows-based Help does this).
Then when an email gets stuff chopped out, I'd like the ability to know about the specifics for that message without pawing through the logs looking for that particular message and then having to open my options screen to sort out what was parsed and I should conclude from what B9 had to parse. Contextual help similar to the text brought up in 'Options' > Security profiles tab for each checklist option would make that exercise a lot more productive.
| Perry wrote: |
| That said one thing I think is missing in both utilities is that for the non-home user, the interface would not really matter nearly as much if you had better ways of hooking into it with other utilites. For example where I work we would probably just use other utilities to provide the interface to logs, filters, and so on, but then the core program would be able to update itself based on updates to its external files. In MWP, and I think it could apply here as well, with the filter example one could make a far better external interface then Firetrust could ever do with an internal one. The internal one has to be functional, especially for the non-business user, but the business user would have one more custom tailored to the business at hand. |
So you'd like to be able to customize the B9 parsing capabilty? I'm not sure what you're asking for here.
| Perry wrote: |
| I would like to see some of this give us the features that REXX has. |
So what is REXX then? Do you have a URL? What specific REXX features do you think should be given priority attention?
_________________
I like SPAM ... on my sandwich!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perry
Lieutenant
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Posts: 291
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ikeb"]
| Perry wrote: |
| Perry wrote: |
| I would like to see some of this give us the features that REXX has. |
So what is REXX then? Do you have a URL? What specific REXX features do you think should be given priority attention?
|
I better not post too much on what I think right now as someone wiped out my wife's XP machine and I am having a little trouble getting the network part to function again (tcp is dead).
In any case REXX is basically from the IBM world and has a few other look alikes such as Arexx for the Amiga.
Basically your programs all have ports with names for certain functions.
Lets say you have a drawing program. It would use a certain memory space for the drawings it creates. It may not have a good mask function, however another program you have does. You could use the other program and the drawing would update in both. Ok, so far so good, but back to the ports. You would not have to exit the first program to use the good mask features of the second. All you have to do is enter the other program via the ports and send it commands via Rexx. Rexx is like a basic language that sits between the two programs. It will direct traffic to the ports of both while manipulating the data coming to and from it.
That is the basic concept, now back to my hammer.
Perry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8a © 2001 phpBB Group
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
Version 2.2 by Paul Laudanski © 2003-2004 Computer Cops
|
You can syndicate our news using the file RSS 0.91, ultramode.txt, or RSS 1.0.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
