Professional Web Applications Themes

Mail Filter not effective - Mac Applications & Software

I have had trouble getting the filter system in "Mail" to work. (10.2.6) I programmed it to trash any mail with words like _iagra , _enis , etc , and yet they keep on getting in. Damm Them . . . . any hints....

  1. #1

    Default Mail Filter not effective

    I have had trouble getting the filter system in "Mail" to work.
    (10.2.6) I programmed it to trash any mail with words like _iagra ,
    _enis , etc , and yet they keep on getting in. Damm Them . . . . any
    hints.
    Vincent Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    In article <220820031825596140%net>,
    Vincent Genovese <net> wrote:
     

    How did you program it? Did you set up specific rules, or are you
    letting the junk filter do it?

    If you did set up specific rules, how did you frame them?

    --
    Never play strip tarot.
    Michelle Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

     

    i used the mail rules from preferences menu !

    .. i set up for example

    _enis rule
    if message content contains _enis then transfer message to trash . .

    and yet I get maqny of those adds , I have checked and the spam does
    contain the word IN TEXT cause it can be selected and edited.

    what is framing ?

    BTW it seems to me the junk filter is junk ! it junks important mail.
    Vincent Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    In article <220820031825596140%net>, Vincent Genovese
    <net> wrote:
     

    A common spam trick is to break up commonly filtered words with HTML
    comments (some<!body>thing li<!ttle>ke th<!at>is). The comments don't
    appear in the read message and fiters don't find them.

    --
    Christopher S. Moore
    us
    Email replies must begin with "Re: " in Subject line or be killed.
    Chris Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    In article <230820031036528429%net>,
    Vincent Genovese <net> wrote:
     

    Well, if the content contains "enis" without the leading "_", the rule
    won't pick it up.
     

    You have to train it. I've been using it well over a year, and I get a
    false positive about once a month, if that often.

    Keep in mind that messages from anyone in your address book will never
    be junked (unless you've modified the junk rule to change that), so just
    put the names of the senders of those important mails in the address
    book.

    --
    Never play strip tarot.
    Michelle Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

     
    With all due respect of course it contains the P. I try to be polite
    when I post here.
    Vincent Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    In article <230820031209215735%net>,
    Vincent Genovese <net> wrote:
     
    > With all due respect of course it contains the P. I try to be polite
    > when I post here.[/ref]

    Oh. I thought you might be trying to use it as a wild card. My
    apologies.

    --Michelle

    --
    Never play strip tarot.
    Michelle Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

     

    This is great. good information. i have one more question : is there a
    simple way to remove all html ? if so what would i lose.
    Vincent Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    In article <230820031659055026%net>, Vincent Genovese
    <net> wrote:
     
    >
    > This is great. good information. i have one more question : is there a
    > simple way to remove all html ? if so what would i lose.[/ref]

    Not really that I'm aware of. That would mean you'd have to alter the
    senders message. And if you got a non-HTML aware e-mail client things
    would get pretty ugly in a hurry.

    You could filter for comments, but their are some problems with that.
    Filtering for <-- you'd have to make sure not to include <!--d because
    of <!--Doctype (see a Hotmail users body). Also filtering for <! will
    land you in trouble with <!x-stuff-for-pete base=. Seem to think I'm
    forgetting one other one.

    So if you felt ambitious you could make a bunch of filters for <!--a,
    <!--b, <!a, <!b, etc. Leaving out the <!--d, and <!x. I'm not familar
    with Apple's Mail but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow you to use
    regular expressions so you'd have to type each one in.

    I'll pass on one other tip of the day. Creating a filter for any
    header=QMTP would probably get a lot. QMTP (Quick Mail Transfer
    Protocol) is the common way to send spam. Allows them to send a million
    messages in an hour over a throw away dial up account. The protocol
    SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) is just to slow for their use
    altough it suits non-spammers just fine.

    --
    Christopher S. Moore
    us
    Email replies must begin with "Re: " in Subject line or be killed.
    Chris Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    Chris Moore wrote:
     [/ref][/ref]

    A decent Bayesian filter _would_ find them. Even if they
    were different in every spam, they would not occur in legit
    messages and eventually, the filter would learn to distinguish.

    I don't have OS 10.2 so I can't speak for the Mail.app
    filter. But I read the address above with Mozilla 1.4 and
    it only misclassified messages the first three days. Since then,
    not one mistake.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    When all you have is a perl, everything looks like a string.

    Wes Guest

  11. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    Removed by Administrator
    Chris Guest
    Moderated Post

  12. #12

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    Chris Moore <us> writes: 

    AFAIK, it does. But like with Mozilla, it has to be trained.
    There's an icon on the toolbar to mark messages as junk/not-junk.

    In order for the spam filtering to work, you have to mark spam as
    junk, and if you see any message that is incorrectly categorized as
    junk, you have to mark it as not-junk. After processing a sufficient
    quantity of mail messages, the accuracy will improve enough that it
    will become useful.

    With Mozilla, it became useful after about a week and became really
    good after about a month. Today (after many months), it catches about
    95% of my spam, and has very few false positives. I would assume
    that Mail will behave similarly.

    -- David
    David Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Mail Filter not effective

    David C. wrote: 

    I guess it will vary for each user depending on
    what kind of mail they get. Mozilla for me had
    two or three false positives and one or two false
    negatives per day for three days. Since then,
    ZERO errors (over five weeks)

    --
    Wes Groleau
    Alive and Well
    http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/

    Wes Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Mail Rules: Filter for blank subject?
    By F. in forum Mac Networking
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 2nd, 09:19 PM
  2. mail.app spam filter
    By Michelle in forum Mac Networking
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 19th, 01:05 PM
  3. Word 2000 mail merge filter
    By Michael Y in forum FileMaker
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 21st, 11:24 PM
  4. Mail server and filter recommandation required
    By Yuan in forum Sun Solaris
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 28th, 07:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139