Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?

I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3

Thanks in advance!
coolchinchilla

"coolchinchilla" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>
> I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3
>
> Thanks in advance!
> coolchinchilla

Try Spampal. I have used it for some time and it just gets better and
better.

http://www.spampal.org/

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>
> I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3
>
>
I really like Popfile - http://popfile.sourceforge.net/

--
Hedgehog

coolchinchilla <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:10uhd2f6k38kva3
@corp.supernews.com:

> Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>
> I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3

You probably know this already, but thunderbird has its own built in
bayesian filter.


> Thanks in advance!
> coolchinchilla

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:12:26 -0600, coolchinchilla
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>
>I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3

SpamPal, with Spamhilator a not-too-distant second.

-- Bob

Septima wrote:
> "coolchinchilla" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>>
>>I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3
>>
>>Thanks in advance!
>>coolchinchilla
>
>
> Try Spampal. I have used it for some time and it just gets better and
> better.
>
> http://www.spampal.org/
>
>


I like K9 @ http://keir.net/k9.html. After 17,700 (9,700 spam) emails
it is running at 98.9% efficiency and has classified 10 good mails as
spam and 179 spams as good. It has a 1 button click to reclassify any
email.

--
N

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:21:25 -0600, NoMoreMrNiceGuy
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Septima wrote:
>> "coolchinchilla" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>>>
>>>I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance!
>>>coolchinchilla
>>
>>
>> Try Spampal. I have used it for some time and it just gets better and
>> better.
>>
>> http://www.spampal.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>I like K9 @ http://keir.net/k9.html. After 17,700 (9,700 spam) emails
>it is running at 98.9% efficiency and has classified 10 good mails as
>spam and 179 spams as good. It has a 1 button click to reclassify any
>email.

Howdy,

My suggestion:

http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Aaron <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns95DFD8BB6E476unknown23@130.133.1.4:

> coolchinchilla <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:10uhd2f6k38kva3 @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>>
>> I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3
>
> You probably know this already, but thunderbird has its own built
> in bayesian filter.
>
And it actually works pretty darn well.

--
Mike
......File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

> Mike Andrade <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>Aaron <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in

>>> coolchinchilla <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in

>>> Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?

>>> I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3

>> You probably know this already, but thunderbird has its own built
>> in bayesian filter.

>And it actually works pretty darn well.

It works better than anything I've tried previously. It gets almost
all spam and moves it to a Junk folder. When new spam comes in it must
be marked manually as Junk to train the filter.

The downside is that spammers are trying pretty hard to use legitimate
looking subject headers and sometimes a valid email is moved to the
Junk folder.

This would be someone initiating an email that is not in the address
book. Once it has been replied to once it is not marked as Junk again
if the thread continues. If I initiate an email the reply is not
marked as Junk. It's only the out of the blue email from unknown
senders that might be lost, unless the Junk folder is scanned before
deletion.




--
Pricelessware:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org

REM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in newsgpku01sol2tb0ch4npv14o5305qqhhb76
@4ax.com:

>
>> Mike Andrade <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>Aaron <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>
>>>> coolchinchilla <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>
>>>> Any tips for the best spam filter freeware?
>
>>>> I run Win98, dialup, thunderbird, pop3
>
>>> You probably know this already, but thunderbird has its own built
>>> in bayesian filter.
>
>>And it actually works pretty darn well.
>
> It works better than anything I've tried previously. It gets almost
> all spam and moves it to a Junk folder. When new spam comes in it must
> be marked manually as Junk to train the filter.

I've found it to be less accurate than most of the recommendations on
this thread myself. But it's easier to use due to its intergretion

> The downside is that spammers are trying pretty hard to use legitimate
> looking subject headers and sometimes a valid email is moved to the
> Junk folder.

Doesn't really matter, bayesian filters take into account the whole
email, not just the header?? f such methods worked, most bayesian spam
filters would be in trouble.

>
>
>
>