K9 problems

B

Bill Jones

I've been using K9 since May. It generally works very well in catching spam
but there are some operational problems. I've written to Robin about them
but they have yet to be addressed. I'm wondering if others are bothered by
these also? If so, maybe that will help Robin address them:

1. K9 has a problem when you have an address in your whitelist and the
spammer has that address embedded in their address.

Here's an example email address from a spammer:
(e-mail address removed)

If I have a whitelist rule:
From :cnet.com

K9 will pass the spam mail as good because it contains cnet.com in the From:
address!

In the current design of K9, there is nothing I can do about this problem
other than not use the whitelist. The few modifiers ("starts", "ends" and
"contains") don't offer enough granularity to address this weakness in K9.
There needs to be a "non-embedded" keyword or whatever you want to call it.

2. If you mistakenly delete an Outlook email, it would be nice to be able to
retrieve it from the K9 storage area and send it back to Outlook.

3. Even after you reclassify an email, it still winds up in the storage area
in the original classification. If you are in the Recent Emails section and
reclassify an email from Spam to Good, then click on the Organize button,
then go to the Storage Area, the email will still be in the Spam area, not
the Good one! And if you are in the Storage Area, reviewing emails there
and reclassify any mail to the opposite (Spam or Good) and hit refresh, they
don't get moved to the opposite storage area like they should. You're stuck
with where they are.

4. On the Advanced tab is a setting to "Do not add whitelisted emails to the
database". This has never worked since it was added some releases back.

5. It would be nice if K9 had the option to not route email to Outlook if
the email achieved some a scoring higher than some user defined threshold.
 
M

Martin Cleaver

Bill Jones said:
1. K9 has a problem when you have an address in your
whitelist and the spammer has that address embedded in
their address.

Here's an example email address from a spammer:
(e-mail address removed)

If I have a whitelist rule:
From :cnet.com

K9 will pass the spam mail as good because it contains
cnet.com in the From: address!

That sounds logical and I wouldn't expect it to work any other
way. You'll just have to make your whitelist rule more
specific, e.g. From :.cnet.com or From :mad:cnet.com
In the current design of K9, there is nothing I can do
about this problem other than not use the whitelist.

There won't be in any other either. You want the logically
impossible.
2. If you mistakenly delete an Outlook email, it would be
nice to be able to retrieve it from the K9 storage area and
send it back to Outlook.

I too have occasionally wanted that.

Rgds

Martin
 
G

George

Bill Jones said:
I've been using K9 since May. It generally works very well in catching spam
but there are some operational problems. I've written to Robin about them
but they have yet to be addressed. I'm wondering if others are bothered by
these also? If so, maybe that will help Robin address them:

Since about version 1.15 I'm finding it's not as reliable at classifying
spam. Even after 100s of spam emails it's still down at 88%. I don't think
I am doing anything different with it. Previously it was up to 96%.
 
F

five

Bill Jones wrote:
||
|| 3. Even after you reclassify an email, it still winds up in the
|| storage area in the original classification. If you are in the
|| Recent Emails section and reclassify an email from Spam to Good,
|| then click on the Organize button, then go to the Storage Area, the
|| email will still be in the Spam area, not the Good one! And if you
|| are in the Storage Area, reviewing emails there and reclassify any
|| mail to the opposite (Spam or Good) and hit refresh, they don't get
|| moved to the opposite storage area like they should. You're stuck
|| with where they are.
||

I can't agree with this....just tested it and all the swapping around on
reclassification worked fine for me...are you *sure* about this point
because if reclassification didn't work in the way that you suggest then
surely k9 would be totally useless.

five
 
M

Martin Cleaver

George said:
Since about version 1.15 I'm finding it's not as reliable
at classifying spam. Even after 100s of spam emails it's
still down at 88%. I don't think I am doing anything
different with it. Previously it was up to 96%.

It can vary.. I receive mail (the same mail) on two machines,
and on one it has consistently been above 99 while the other
went down to 97. That can only depend on my organizing andf
archiving.

SO in the end, I copied the good .dat files over the less good
ones.

Rgds

Martin
 
B

Bill Jones

Try rebuilding the database. That has helped me. I also use whitelist and
blacklist rules to help K9 along. So I am at 99.2% since May and 99.9 since
21 days ago when I did a rebuild.

Bill Jones said:
I've been using K9 since May. It generally works very well in catching spam
but there are some operational problems. I've written to Robin about them
but they have yet to be addressed. I'm wondering if others are bothered by
these also? If so, maybe that will help Robin address them:

Since about version 1.15 I'm finding it's not as reliable at classifying
spam. Even after 100s of spam emails it's still down at 88%. I don't think
I am doing anything different with it. Previously it was up to 96%.
 
B

Bill Jones

Hmmm. I did test it before I posted and it didn't work for me. Still
doesn't. Maybe works for some and not others? Or maybe just a problem on
my system? Are you running WinXP Pro & Outlook 2002 SP2 (my config) by
chance? Hope others will weigh in on this.

Bill

Bill Jones wrote:
||
|| 3. Even after you reclassify an email, it still winds up in the
|| storage area in the original classification. If you are in the
|| Recent Emails section and reclassify an email from Spam to Good,
|| then click on the Organize button, then go to the Storage Area, the
|| email will still be in the Spam area, not the Good one! And if you
|| are in the Storage Area, reviewing emails there and reclassify any
|| mail to the opposite (Spam or Good) and hit refresh, they don't get
|| moved to the opposite storage area like they should. You're stuck
|| with where they are.
||

I can't agree with this....just tested it and all the swapping around on
reclassification worked fine for me...are you *sure* about this point
because if reclassification didn't work in the way that you suggest then
surely k9 would be totally useless.

five
 
B

Bill Jones

Bill Jones said:
1. K9 has a problem when you have an address in your
whitelist and the spammer has that address embedded in
their address.

Here's an example email address from a spammer:
(e-mail address removed)

If I have a whitelist rule:
From :cnet.com

K9 will pass the spam mail as good because it contains
cnet.com in the From: address!

That sounds logical and I wouldn't expect it to work any other
way. You'll just have to make your whitelist rule more
specific, e.g. From :.cnet.com or From :mad:cnet.com

[BJ] Robin had suggested the @ also. But that doesn't always work
since some addresses are of the form @level1.cnet.com. I don't
want to get into having to map out EVERY possibility. The "."
idea might work and I will give that a try.
In the current design of K9, there is nothing I can do
about this problem other than not use the whitelist.

There won't be in any other either. You want the logically
impossible.

[BJ] Not so. If there were a modifier called "standalone" or
"discrete", then the problem would be solved. Then
using thsi modifier, cnet.com would parse different than
homecnet.com.
2. If you mistakenly delete an Outlook email, it would be
nice to be able to retrieve it from the K9 storage area and
send it back to Outlook.

I too have occasionally wanted that.

Rgds

Martin
 
F

five

Bill Jones wrote:
|| Hmmm. I did test it before I posted and it didn't work for me.
|| Still doesn't. Maybe works for some and not others? Or maybe just
|| a problem on my system? Are you running WinXP Pro & Outlook 2002
|| SP2 (my config) by chance? Hope others will weigh in on this.
||
|| Bill

OE6 (6.00.2800.1123) on W2K SP4. Previously worked on WinME fine too.

five
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top