Mark an email as junk because of the TYPE of email, not the domai.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I would like to mark an email as Junk in Outlook because of the TYPE of
email, not because of the domain name. I've used a competitors version of
junk filtering that let me do this. It identified a class by a heuristic
algorithm I believe and over time vitually eliminated all such junk mail. I
DO have Microsofts version set to the highest level.
 
whaler said:
I would like to mark an email as Junk in Outlook because of the TYPE of
email, not because of the domain name. I've used a competitors
version of
junk filtering that let me do this. It identified a class by a
heuristic
algorithm I believe and over time vitually eliminated all such junk
mail. I
DO have Microsofts version set to the highest level.
Click to expand...


So how is an e-mail "type" identified? Sounds like you really do NOT
know whatever the competitor's e-mail client did to detect spam.
Otherwise, you would be more clear as to how the spam is identified
rather than just say it is some "type" of e-mail.

You also do not mention WHICH version of Outlook that you are currently
using. Outlook 2003 added Bayesian filtering to detect spam based on
your historical experience with spam (so it has to learn). Microsoft's
updates to Outlook 2003 inserts preset lists of Bayesian statistics
which may not match your specific e-mail traffic. Best is to feed the
Bayesian filter a set of good e-mails and a set of spam e-mails so it
can learn based on what you received; otherwise, figure a couple weeks
for it to learn from scratch but how fast it learns depends on the
amount of e-mails you receive. SpamBayes runs as a plug-in to Outlook
(but can also run as a proxy) and also only does Bayesian filtering.
SpamPal has Bayesian filtering (via a plug-in) along with using DNSBLs
(DNS blacklists of known spam sources), a spamminess threshold measured
by several factors for HTML-formatted e-mails (which you can configure),
MX blocking from dynamic DNS'ed mail servers, like from trojanized PCs
connecting via dial-up or broadband that are running mailer daemons, and
other means of detecting spam, and all of which is free (see
http://www.spampal.org) and works with any POP3-compliant e-mail client.
 
Sorrrrrrrry, lol. I do detect a case of ATTITUDE in your response. The
program I was referring to is I Hate Spam which I was using the "full"
versions of both for OE and Outlook2003.

Sounds like you might want to take a break from running throught the
newsgroups.......just a suggestion.
 
MaxBro said:
Sorrrrrrrry, lol. I do detect a case of ATTITUDE in your response.
The program I was referring to is I Hate Spam which I was using the
"full" versions of both for OE and Outlook2003.

Sounds like you might want to take a break from running throught the
newsgroups.......just a suggestion.
Click to expand...


You still never mentioned WHICH version of Outlook that you use. As
mentioned, Outlook 2003 added Bayesian filtering. From what I've heard
from other users that have tried a few Bayesian enabled products,
Microsoft's Bayesian filtering is "loose" so it isn't effective for
awhile, plus it isn't very configurable, especially to prevent
poisoning. Most Bayesian filters start out completely dumb because they
have no statistics yet on which to exercise against new e-mails. Some
let you feed in sets of good e-mails to train them which ones are not
spam and let you feed in sets of bad e-mails to train them which ones
are bad, but then you need those old e-mails to pre-train your Bayesian
filter to populate its weighted word database. Typically you need a
corpus of around 600 mails (which is a sample representing your typical
load of good and spam mails) before the Bayesian filter starts to
perform optimally. I've heard (but not confirmed) that Microsoft's
updates include a preset list of weighted words but that list is
obviously not based on your historical experience with e-mails. Is
there an option in Outlook 2003 to pre-train it based on YOUR sets of
good and bad e-mails? The idea is to provide a "starter set" in the
Bayesian database but it's not actually tailored to your experiences
with e-mails.

IHateSpam also incorporates Bayesian filtering. If you feel that
IHateSpam did a better job than the new Bayesian filter incorporated
into Outlook 2003 then why aren't you still using it? I would suspect
IHateSpam would be a better Bayesian filter than the one in OL2003.
Won't IHateSpam work with Outlook 2003? According to
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/evaluation/930/web/documents/ihs_unsupported_email_faq.pdf,
it looks to run as a proxy through which your e-mail client connects to
your mail server. If not, SpamPal makes a good alternative and it also
runs as a proxy so any POP3-compliant e-mail client can use it, and it's
free to boot.

As with all other fluff or 3rd party software incorporated into
Microsoft's products, don't expect them to perform equivalent to the
full-version products available from 3rd parties. IHateSpam, SpamPal
(free), and SpamBayes (free) are all probably better solutions than
OL2003's Bayesian filter. You might even be able to add Cloudmark's
SpamNet (now called SafetyBar) which is a user community voting scheme
to identify spam for another layer of protection. And, of course, you
should have enabled the spam filter on your ISP-provided mailbox. Don't
expect an ultimate spam solution from Microsoft.
 
I am using Outlook2003 11.6359.6360 (SP1). And yes the IHateSpam does work
with this version. I have used it and do like it. My point was to suggest
that in:
Actions
Junk e-mail
add a selection (mark as Junk), which should make it as THE tie in to the
Bayesian filter.
I have been happy to see that Microsoft has added so many of the after
market 3rd party software features that do make working with the
applications and system easier.
After years of using these items I have eliminated the "memory overhead" ie:
spam filters, security features and the only third party software is for my
anti-virus. Thanks for your earlier response and have a great day.
 
Back
Top