OT Re: Junk Filter Wimpy?
On 2/3/2008 2:19 PM goodwin scribbled:
> On 2/3/2008 1:06 PM Gord McFee scribbled:
>> You may have seen my post from yesterday. At that time, my stats after
>> less than one day with K9, and 196 emails at that time, were 95.41%.
>> Now, after less than two days and 439 emails in (I am averaging about
>> 257 a day), I am at 97.95%. This is truly amazing. I should mention
>> that I post to the Internet under my real email address and always have
>> and, as noted, receive a high volume of email each day. It may be
>> partially these two facts that cause Thunderbird not to do better than
>> 80% for me.[/color]
> I doubt this affects Tbird and its filters. When you say post to the
> Internet, do you mean newsgroups via NNTP?
> If so, its been shown that newsgroups don't really get harvested for
> addresses - /web sites/ do.
> Interestingly, Forte Agent's spam feature caught 98.5% on[color=green]
>> 386 emails the last time I used it.[/color]
> Agent uses regex more than other stuff, doesn't it?
> I suppose if I posted to the[color=green]
>> Internet under an alias, and only received 35 to 50 emails a day,
>> Thunderbird alone would do the trick, but in my situation at least, K9
>> is a terrific find.
> Does K9 use dnsbls?
> Intuitively, I think Tbird works better as the volume goes up. More
> likely, the spam you are getting is making a conscious effort to thwart
> baysian filters. Some spammers do that a lot more than others, mostly
> the pillz sellers. For me, I'm getting mostly 419 phishes for the past
> month after having not seen any for years. Spampal regex picks most of
> these off by simple word matching, doubt Tbird even looks at it since it
> trusts Spampal.[/color]
Here is a spam that no one picked up - neither my ISP, Tbird, nor Spampal.
And its not in English...