Best email provider that works well with thunderbird? - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Best email provider that works well with thunderbird? - Mozilla ; Hi everybody, I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following features: - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux environment) - good spam filter - possibility to download entire folders to my local ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

  1. Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Hi everybody,
    I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    features:

    - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    environment)
    - good spam filter
    - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    opposed to keep them only
    on the provider's server)
    - plenty of space

    I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).

    Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.


  2. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    eric wrote:
    > Hi everybody,
    > I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    > features:
    >
    > - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    > environment)
    > - good spam filter
    > - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    > opposed to keep them only
    > on the provider's server)
    > - plenty of space
    >
    > I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    > it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >
    > Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >


    Gmail - https://mail.google.com/support

  3. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    eric wrote:
    > Hi everybody,
    > I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    > features:
    >
    > - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    > environment)
    > - good spam filter
    > - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    > opposed to keep them only
    > on the provider's server)
    > - plenty of space
    >
    > I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    > it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >
    > Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >


    Check GMail (Google Mail).

  4. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    eric wrote:
    > Hi everybody,
    > I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    > features:
    >
    > - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    > environment)
    > - good spam filter
    > - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    > opposed to keep them only
    > on the provider's server)
    > - plenty of space
    >
    > I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    > it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >
    > Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >

    Consider www.inbox.com - very flexible and 5GB limit

    --
    Wilf

  5. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    On 09/16/2006 12:11 PM, eric wrote:
    > Hi everybody,
    > I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    > features:
    >
    > - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    > environment)
    > - good spam filter
    > - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    > opposed to keep them only
    > on the provider's server)
    > - plenty of space
    >
    > I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    > it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >
    > Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >


    yahoo.com.au (POP3, free)
    www.aim.com (IMAP, free)

    If you decide to go with Gmail, read the user agreement carefully.
    AFAIK, Google owns every email you send or receive with your Gmail account.

    You might find more options here:
    http://www.search.com/search?q=free+email+pop3+imap

    --
    paduille.4058.mumia.w@earthlink.net

  6. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    eric wrote:
    > Hi everybody,
    > I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    > features:
    >
    > - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    > environment)
    > - good spam filter
    > - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    > opposed to keep them only
    > on the provider's server)
    > - plenty of space
    >
    > I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    > it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >
    > Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >

    yahoo mail -- you can use it like Pop but you need FreePops to do
    that: http://www.freepops.org/en/

    Aol.com/Aim.com -- is now imap, or you can set it up like pop and use
    FreePops

    or since you're using hotmail, set up the hotmail account in TB, and
    use FreePops with it. Thats what I do with my hotmail accounts. Now,
    I only log in once every 25 days, and only for a few seconds.

    --
    It comes to the end of Bill Gates long, successful life, he finds
    himself in the Purgatory waiting room, when God enters . . . "Well,
    Bill," says God, "I'm confused. I'm not sure whether to send you to
    Heaven or Hell: you helped society enormously by putting a computer in
    almost every home in the world, and yet you've also created some of
    the most unearthly frustrations known to mankind. I'm going to do
    something I've never done before: I'm going to let you choose where
    you want to go." Bill replies, "Well, thanks, God. What's the
    difference between the two?" God says, "I'm willing to let you visit
    both places briefly to help you make your decision." "Okay, where
    should I go first?" asks Bill. God says, "That's up to you." Bill
    says, "OK, let's try Hell first." So Bill goes to Hell. It's a
    beautiful, clean, sandy beach with clear waters. There are thousands
    of beautiful women running around, playing in the water, laughing and
    frolicking about. The sun is shining, the temperature is just right.
    The whole thing looks perfect, and Bill is very pleased. "This is
    great!" he tells God, "If this is Hell, I REALLY want to see Heaven!"
    "Fine," says God, and off they go . . . to be continued!

  7. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    eric wrote:
    > Hi everybody,
    > I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    > features:
    >
    > - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    > environment)
    > - good spam filter
    > - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    > opposed to keep them only
    > on the provider's server)
    > - plenty of space
    >
    > I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    > it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >
    > Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >



    Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the best
    any filter can do.


  8. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Mumia W. (using mozilla) wrote:

    > If you decide to go with Gmail, read the user agreement carefully.
    > AFAIK, Google owns every email you send or receive with your Gmail account.


    http://mail.google.com/mail/help/int...ms_of_use.html

    Under section 5, Intellectual Property Rights:

    "Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google does not claim any ownership
    in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images,
    photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload,
    transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your
    content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service."

    --
    Alex

  9. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?


    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > eric wrote:
    > > Hi everybody,
    > > I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    > > features:
    > >
    > > - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    > > environment)
    > > - good spam filter
    > > - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    > > opposed to keep them only
    > > on the provider's server)
    > > - plenty of space
    > >
    > > I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    > > it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    > >
    > > Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    > >

    >
    >
    > Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    > JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the best
    > any filter can do.


    Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    Thunderbird, correct?)


  10. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    _eric_ spoke thusly on 17/09/2006 3:19 PM:
    > Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    > Thunderbird, correct?)


    Yup. JMC=Junk Mail Controls.
    http://www.mozilla.org/products/thun.../junkmail.html
    --
    Chris Ilias
    mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
    Mozilla links
    (Please do not email me tech support questions)

  11. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    eric wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >> eric wrote:
    >>> Hi everybody,
    >>> I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    >>> features:
    >>>
    >>> - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    >>> environment)
    >>> - good spam filter
    >>> - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    >>> opposed to keep them only
    >>> on the provider's server)
    >>> - plenty of space
    >>>
    >>> I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    >>> it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >>>
    >>> Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    >> JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the best
    >> any filter can do.

    >
    > Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    > Thunderbird, correct?)
    >


    Probably Junk Mail Control.

  12. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Nir wrote:
    > eric wrote:
    >> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>> eric wrote:
    >>>> Hi everybody,
    >>>> I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    >>>> features:
    >>>>
    >>>> - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    >>>> environment)
    >>>> - good spam filter
    >>>> - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    >>>> opposed to keep them only
    >>>> on the provider's server)
    >>>> - plenty of space
    >>>>
    >>>> I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    >>>> it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >>>>
    >>>> Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    >>> JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the best
    >>> any filter can do.

    >>
    >> Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    >> Thunderbird, correct?)
    >>

    >
    > Probably Junk Mail Control.


    Yep. Junk Mail Controls (JMC) will catch 99% of spam. And thats about
    the best ANY filter can hope to attain currently.

  13. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > Nir wrote:
    >> eric wrote:
    >>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>> Hi everybody,
    >>>>> I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the following
    >>>>> features:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    >>>>> environment)
    >>>>> - good spam filter
    >>>>> - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    >>>>> opposed to keep them only
    >>>>> on the provider's server)
    >>>>> - plenty of space
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up with
    >>>>> it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    >>>> JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the best
    >>>> any filter can do.
    >>>
    >>> Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    >>> Thunderbird, correct?)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Probably Junk Mail Control.

    >
    > Yep. Junk Mail Controls (JMC) will catch 99% of spam. And thats about
    > the best ANY filter can hope to attain currently.


    It doesn't do nearly that well here. Catches maybe 50% of spam, and
    maybe 1% false positives. Maybe my spam is less consistent than yours.
    No matter HOW many times I tell it that Washington Mutual account
    notifications are spam (I don't use that bank), it insists on allowing
    them the get to my inbox....

  14. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >> Nir wrote:
    >>> eric wrote:
    >>>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>>> Hi everybody,
    >>>>>> I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the
    >>>>>> following
    >>>>>> features:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    >>>>>> environment)
    >>>>>> - good spam filter
    >>>>>> - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    >>>>>> opposed to keep them only
    >>>>>> on the provider's server)
    >>>>>> - plenty of space
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up
    >>>>>> with
    >>>>>> it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    >>>>> JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the
    >>>>> best
    >>>>> any filter can do.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    >>>> Thunderbird, correct?)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Probably Junk Mail Control.

    >>
    >> Yep. Junk Mail Controls (JMC) will catch 99% of spam. And thats about
    >> the best ANY filter can hope to attain currently.

    >
    > It doesn't do nearly that well here. Catches maybe 50% of spam, and
    > maybe 1% false positives. Maybe my spam is less consistent than yours.
    > No matter HOW many times I tell it that Washington Mutual account
    > notifications are spam (I don't use that bank), it insists on allowing
    > them the get to my inbox....


    Heck my JMC never caught LESS than 65% of my spam, from day one.

    In fact when I go this computer, I did a test of sorts. I monitored how
    long it took to catch 75% and how long it took to hit 90%.

    I hit 75 after less than a week, and 90 after two weeks and it just kept
    getting better.

    Am now at 99.2% with NO false postives in the last 4 months.

    All I did was.
    exempted those in my address book from checking. Took the precaution of
    putting all my newsletters senders in the Address book. (simple click
    does it)

    If a messsage was spam, and JMC didnt catch it, I pressed JUNK
    If a message WASNT spam, and JMC had caught it, I pressed NOT-JUNK

    Thats it pure and simple. No other filters, no attempts to 'improve' the
    ratios, just the basic.


    For every spam I see in my inbox, there are 99 or a 100 in the Junk folder.

    I dont 'see' any 'problem' spams -JMC learns and after a couple of days,
    that specific spam (and others of it nature) are always caught.

    JMC even picks up the phishing attacks (which is probably what those
    Washington Mutuals you get are) on MY bank, as well as the other banks I
    dont use. It doesnt pick up the ones actually from my bank tho.

    How big is your training.dat file?

  15. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>> Nir wrote:
    >>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>>>> Hi everybody,
    >>>>>>> I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the
    >>>>>>> following
    >>>>>>> features:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    >>>>>>> environment)
    >>>>>>> - good spam filter
    >>>>>>> - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    >>>>>>> opposed to keep them only
    >>>>>>> on the provider's server)
    >>>>>>> - plenty of space
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up
    >>>>>>> with
    >>>>>>> it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    >>>>>> JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the
    >>>>>> best
    >>>>>> any filter can do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    >>>>> Thunderbird, correct?)
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Probably Junk Mail Control.
    >>>
    >>> Yep. Junk Mail Controls (JMC) will catch 99% of spam. And thats about
    >>> the best ANY filter can hope to attain currently.

    >>
    >> It doesn't do nearly that well here. Catches maybe 50% of spam, and
    >> maybe 1% false positives. Maybe my spam is less consistent than yours.
    >> No matter HOW many times I tell it that Washington Mutual account
    >> notifications are spam (I don't use that bank), it insists on allowing
    >> them the get to my inbox....

    >
    > Heck my JMC never caught LESS than 65% of my spam, from day one.
    >
    > In fact when I go this computer, I did a test of sorts. I monitored how
    > long it took to catch 75% and how long it took to hit 90%.
    >
    > I hit 75 after less than a week, and 90 after two weeks and it just kept
    > getting better.
    >
    > Am now at 99.2% with NO false postives in the last 4 months.
    >
    > All I did was.
    > exempted those in my address book from checking. Took the precaution of
    > putting all my newsletters senders in the Address book. (simple click
    > does it)
    >
    > If a messsage was spam, and JMC didnt catch it, I pressed JUNK
    > If a message WASNT spam, and JMC had caught it, I pressed NOT-JUNK
    >
    > Thats it pure and simple. No other filters, no attempts to 'improve' the
    > ratios, just the basic.
    >
    >
    > For every spam I see in my inbox, there are 99 or a 100 in the Junk folder.
    >
    > I dont 'see' any 'problem' spams -JMC learns and after a couple of days,
    > that specific spam (and others of it nature) are always caught.
    >
    > JMC even picks up the phishing attacks (which is probably what those
    > Washington Mutuals you get are) on MY bank, as well as the other banks I
    > dont use. It doesnt pick up the ones actually from my bank tho.
    >
    > How big is your training.dat file?

    99% sounds like a dream. It heavily depends on the type of spam mails
    you receive. GMX filters quite much of my spam before Thunderbird
    receives the mails. But if a mail is something like

    spam advertising
    incoherent babble

    it easiliy passes TB's spam filter because Bayesian filters simply don't
    work for this type of spam.

  16. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Steffen Heinzl wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>> Nir wrote:
    >>>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>>>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Hi everybody,
    >>>>>>>> I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the
    >>>>>>>> following
    >>>>>>>> features:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    >>>>>>>> environment)
    >>>>>>>> - good spam filter
    >>>>>>>> - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    >>>>>>>> opposed to keep them only
    >>>>>>>> on the provider's server)
    >>>>>>>> - plenty of space
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed
    >>>>>>>> up with
    >>>>>>>> it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    >>>>>>> JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about
    >>>>>>> the best
    >>>>>>> any filter can do.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    >>>>>> Thunderbird, correct?)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Probably Junk Mail Control.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yep. Junk Mail Controls (JMC) will catch 99% of spam. And thats
    >>>> about the best ANY filter can hope to attain currently.
    >>>
    >>> It doesn't do nearly that well here. Catches maybe 50% of spam, and
    >>> maybe 1% false positives. Maybe my spam is less consistent than yours.
    >>> No matter HOW many times I tell it that Washington Mutual account
    >>> notifications are spam (I don't use that bank), it insists on
    >>> allowing them the get to my inbox....

    >>
    >> Heck my JMC never caught LESS than 65% of my spam, from day one.
    >>
    >> In fact when I go this computer, I did a test of sorts. I monitored
    >> how long it took to catch 75% and how long it took to hit 90%.
    >>
    >> I hit 75 after less than a week, and 90 after two weeks and it just
    >> kept getting better.
    >>
    >> Am now at 99.2% with NO false postives in the last 4 months.
    >>
    >> All I did was.
    >> exempted those in my address book from checking. Took the precaution
    >> of putting all my newsletters senders in the Address book. (simple
    >> click does it)
    >>
    >> If a messsage was spam, and JMC didnt catch it, I pressed JUNK
    >> If a message WASNT spam, and JMC had caught it, I pressed NOT-JUNK
    >>
    >> Thats it pure and simple. No other filters, no attempts to 'improve'
    >> the ratios, just the basic.
    >>
    >>
    >> For every spam I see in my inbox, there are 99 or a 100 in the Junk
    >> folder.
    >>
    >> I dont 'see' any 'problem' spams -JMC learns and after a couple of
    >> days, that specific spam (and others of it nature) are always caught.
    >>
    >> JMC even picks up the phishing attacks (which is probably what those
    >> Washington Mutuals you get are) on MY bank, as well as the other banks
    >> I dont use. It doesnt pick up the ones actually from my bank tho.
    >>
    >> How big is your training.dat file?

    > 99% sounds like a dream. It heavily depends on the type of spam mails
    > you receive. GMX filters quite much of my spam before Thunderbird
    > receives the mails. But if a mail is something like
    >
    > spam advertising
    > incoherent babble
    >
    > it easiliy passes TB's spam filter because Bayesian filters simply don't
    > work for this type of spam.



    Again, it works here, quite well.
    I get lots of those
    spam advertising
    incoheent babble

    JMC catches them.

    I get lots of image only spam

    JMC catches them.

    Tell ya what, you send me the spam yours isnt catching and I shall see
    if mine is or not. My address is at the top of this mesage.

    To be on the safe side, send each one you send me with [x test] added to
    the subject line - this will allow me to monitor them as they come in.

  17. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:28:03 -0400, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:


    > Heck my JMC never caught LESS than 65% of my spam, from day one.


    My JMC was doing pretty well also. problem was i didn't like the
    way it treated mail - that is, leaving it marked Unread. it was
    too distracting to me to see it come in. i need it to be silent;
    i'll go there once or twice a day to check when the time is
    right.

    so now i'm externally collecting and counting RBL warnings and
    then using T-B to filter on them and send the mail, marked Read,
    to the Junk folder. occasionally the filters fail, and then JMC
    provides a decent safety net. in all, it's a pretty good system.

    IMO, JMC should offer the option of marking mail Read on the
    in-come. Also, emptying the Junk folder along with the Trash
    folder would be a nice refinement.

    p.

    --
    Mail: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5
    News: Dialog 2.0.15.1 (beta 38)
    OS: Win XPH sp2

  18. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Paul_B wrote:
    > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:28:03 -0400, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Heck my JMC never caught LESS than 65% of my spam, from day one.

    >
    > My JMC was doing pretty well also. problem was i didn't like the
    > way it treated mail - that is, leaving it marked Unread. it was
    > too distracting to me to see it come in. i need it to be silent;
    > i'll go there once or twice a day to check when the time is
    > right.
    >
    > so now i'm externally collecting and counting RBL warnings and
    > then using T-B to filter on them and send the mail, marked Read,
    > to the Junk folder. occasionally the filters fail, and then JMC
    > provides a decent safety net. in all, it's a pretty good system.
    >
    > IMO, JMC should offer the option of marking mail Read on the
    > in-come. Also, emptying the Junk folder along with the Trash
    > folder would be a nice refinement.
    >
    > p.
    >


    Um, modern versions of Mozilla DONT notify you when they get spam. Even
    the news mail alert is silenced if all there was is spam.

    JMC is silent, what noise does yours make?

    Put your Junk folder in an account you dont open. Then you wont even SEE
    the number of spams you get at all! You can have junk from any account
    end up there - and if you leave the account closed you wont ever see any
    indication at all.

    You can tell JMC to put messages in the trash after x days. You can have
    Thunderbird empty the trash on exit. There ya go, Automatic trashing!



    I use the unread marking of Junk as an aide to sorting my spam. If he
    message is in my Junk folder, and unread, that means that JMC caught it.
    I look at it to ensure it isnt a false positive. If he message is marked
    read, that indicates that *I* marked it as spam do I don have to check it.

    I routinely march down thru my Junk folder hitting NEXT (unread) and
    check that all the messages are indeed spam, no false positives. Easy.
    If they were all marked read it wouldn't be.

    I also use the unread indication in my Junk folder as a quick check to
    monitor the catch ratio of JMC. If a spam ends up in my inbox, then
    there should be 99 to 100 spams or more, unread in my Junk folder. If I
    see 2 spam in my inbox there should be 200 or more unread spam in the
    Junk folder.


    I wouldnt find getting RBL lists, writing TB filters based on them to be
    effective when all I have to do is decide if this email in front of me
    is spam or not. Simple and easy.

    And a catch ratio of 99.2%? I will stack that up against what your
    system does any day of the week. And I spend a LOT less time on it too!

  19. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:59:03 -0400, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:

    > Paul_B wrote:
    >> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:28:03 -0400, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>
    >>> Heck my JMC never caught LESS than 65% of my spam, from day one.

    >>
    >> My JMC was doing pretty well also. problem was i didn't like the
    >> way it treated mail - that is, leaving it marked Unread. it was
    >> too distracting to me to see it come in. i need it to be silent;
    >> i'll go there once or twice a day to check when the time is
    >> right.
    >>
    >> so now i'm externally collecting and counting RBL warnings and
    >> then using T-B to filter on them and send the mail, marked Read,
    >> to the Junk folder. occasionally the filters fail, and then JMC
    >> provides a decent safety net. in all, it's a pretty good system.
    >>
    >> IMO, JMC should offer the option of marking mail Read on the
    >> in-come. Also, emptying the Junk folder along with the Trash
    >> folder would be a nice refinement.
    >>
    >> p.
    >>

    >
    > Um, modern versions of Mozilla DONT notify you when they get spam. Even
    > the news mail alert is silenced if all there was is spam.
    >
    > JMC is silent, what noise does yours make?


    No noise from TB itself. the Junk folder boldens in the interface
    when it has Unread mail.


    > Put your Junk folder in an account you dont open. Then you wont even SEE
    > the number of spams you get at all! You can have junk from any account
    > end up there - and if you leave the account closed you wont ever see any
    > indication at all.


    Good idea, except I show only one account because vertical space
    in the folder list is at a premium here.

    > You can tell JMC to put messages in the trash after x days. You can have
    > Thunderbird empty the trash on exit. There ya go, Automatic trashing!


    another good idea, except i like to do it manually.

    > I use the unread marking of Junk as an aide to sorting my spam. If he
    > message is in my Junk folder, and unread, that means that JMC caught it.
    > I look at it to ensure it isnt a false positive. If he message is marked
    > read, that indicates that *I* marked it as spam do I don have to check it.


    I use colored labels to quick flag which filter the junk has
    tripped, which makes it easier to categorize at a glance.

    > I wouldnt find getting RBL lists, writing TB filters based on them to be
    > effective when all I have to do is decide if this email in front of me
    > is spam or not. Simple and easy.
    >
    > And a catch ratio of 99.2%? I will stack that up against what your
    > system does any day of the week. And I spend a LOT less time on it too!


    no problem.

    p.
    --
    Mail: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5
    News: Dialog 2.0.15.1 (beta 38)
    OS: Win XPH sp2

  20. Re: Best email provider that works well with thunderbird?

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>> Nir wrote:
    >>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>>>> eric wrote:
    >>>>>>> Hi everybody,
    >>>>>>> I'm looking for a new email service, possibly free, with the
    >>>>>>> following
    >>>>>>> features:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> - POP or IMAP easily accessible from Thunderbird (in a Linux
    >>>>>>> environment)
    >>>>>>> - good spam filter
    >>>>>>> - possibility to download entire folders to my local machine (as
    >>>>>>> opposed to keep them only
    >>>>>>> on the provider's server)
    >>>>>>> - plenty of space
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I've used Hotmail (upgraded to 2GB) for many years but I'm fed up
    >>>>>>> with
    >>>>>>> it (very slow, and doesn't meet the first 3 requirements above).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Why do you insist on a 'good spam filter' on the isp side?
    >>>>>> JMC will catch up to 99% of your spam for you, and thats about the
    >>>>>> best
    >>>>>> any filter can do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sorry for the dumb question, what's JMC? (I suppose it's a filter in
    >>>>> Thunderbird, correct?)
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Probably Junk Mail Control.
    >>>
    >>> Yep. Junk Mail Controls (JMC) will catch 99% of spam. And thats about
    >>> the best ANY filter can hope to attain currently.

    >>
    >> It doesn't do nearly that well here. Catches maybe 50% of spam, and
    >> maybe 1% false positives. Maybe my spam is less consistent than yours.
    >> No matter HOW many times I tell it that Washington Mutual account
    >> notifications are spam (I don't use that bank), it insists on allowing
    >> them the get to my inbox....

    >
    > Heck my JMC never caught LESS than 65% of my spam, from day one.
    >
    > In fact when I go this computer, I did a test of sorts. I monitored how
    > long it took to catch 75% and how long it took to hit 90%.
    >
    > I hit 75 after less than a week, and 90 after two weeks and it just kept
    > getting better.
    >
    > Am now at 99.2% with NO false postives in the last 4 months.
    >
    > All I did was.
    > exempted those in my address book from checking. Took the precaution of
    > putting all my newsletters senders in the Address book. (simple click
    > does it)
    >

    Done that.


    > If a messsage was spam, and JMC didnt catch it, I pressed JUNK
    > If a message WASNT spam, and JMC had caught it, I pressed NOT-JUNK
    >

    Continue to do that.

    > Thats it pure and simple. No other filters, no attempts to 'improve' the
    > ratios, just the basic.
    >


    I also prefilter with Poptray, so the junk filter doesn't see some things.

    >
    > For every spam I see in my inbox, there are 99 or a 100 in the Junk folder.
    >
    > I dont 'see' any 'problem' spams -JMC learns and after a couple of days,
    > that specific spam (and others of it nature) are always caught.
    >
    > JMC even picks up the phishing attacks (which is probably what those
    > Washington Mutuals you get are) on MY bank, as well as the other banks I
    > dont use. It doesnt pick up the ones actually from my bank tho.
    >
    > How big is your training.dat file?

    Unfortunately, I still get them even after clicking junk several times.
    Then there are the annoying emails touting this or that stock, which
    arrive with no consistent address, or subject.
    Training.dat is 642k.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast