Outlook 2002 Rules Wizard won't delete spam by keyword in source.

[baobob]

It lets you auto-delete by keyword in body, subject etc., but I see no
option for deletion by HTML source.

Designating deletion by keyword-in-body seems to ignore un-rendered
HTML.

Am I missing something here?

If not, then thanks, Microsoft, for empowering spammers by letting
them simply hide their content.

Is there a workaround?

Thanks much.

***

 

[Brian Tillman [MVP - Outlook]]

It lets you auto-delete by keyword in body, subject etc., but I see no
option for deletion by HTML source.

Designating deletion by keyword-in-body seems to ignore un-rendered
HTML.

Am I missing something here?

Nope. You're not missing anything. Rules can't see the underlying HTML code.

 

[Diane Poremsky [MVP]]

Rules are not very good for spam - there are too many variables to account
for. Use a real antispam scanner if your email provider doesn't filter most
of it out.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/



Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:
(e-mail address removed)




You can access this newsgroup by visiting
http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/default.mspx or point your
newsreader to msnews.microsoft.com.

 

[VanguardLH]

It lets you auto-delete by keyword in body, subject etc., but I see no
option for deletion by HTML source.

Designating deletion by keyword-in-body seems to ignore un-rendered
HTML.

Am I missing something here?

If not, then thanks, Microsoft, for empowering spammers by letting
them simply hide their content.

Is there a workaround?

Thanks much.

***

So how does Outlook parse something like "Vi<B></B>a<I></I>gra"? They
can even put parts of the words into different cells within a table,
make the boundaries of the table hidden, or use named cells to
reconstruct the string outside the table (but no parser would see the
entire string of characters and instead sees a list of cell names). The
HTML tags make the string non-contiguous. The word filtering in Outlook
is just that: word boundary based. The HTML tags are the word
boundaries. This is an old-time trick used by spammers. Some spammers
put their crap inside the HTML tags which are not used in parsing for
words (i.e., the payload of the HTML code). For a user that reads their
e-mails in plain text mode, either they won't see the spam (but just the
words between the bogus HTML tags) or they see the HTML tags, like
"<VIAGRA><makes><you><stupid>". Even if it was a plain text spam
e-mail, how is Outlook going to identify it is spam when it has
"Via-gra" or "vi a gra" or "V.i.a.g.r.a." or "\/îågrä"?

Other than capturing URLs for their web sites to report to blacklists,
there isn't much point in looking inside the body of an e-mail to see if
it is spam. Better is to look at the source of the e-mail to see if is
a known spam source hence the purpose of blacklists, like Spamhaus and
SpamCop. Of course, you'll need a spam filter that can actually make
use of these blacklists which means you need to add a 3rd party spam
filter to use in conjunction with Outlook.

You have enabled the anti-spam filter up on the server in your account,
right?

Is it really that hard to determine from the Subject that it is probably
an e-mail (i.e., spam) that you don't want to read? If you find it
impossible to keep your eyes from selecting a suspect e-mail and also
impossible thereafter to keep your eyes from looking at the body of the
spam in the Preview pane then don't enable the Preview pane. Instead
use the AutoPreview mode (and disable the Preview pane). You'll see the
header pane that lists the e-mails following by the first couple lines
of the e-mail but shown in plain text only.

That Microsoft adds anything to do spam filtering goes beyond the
purpose of an e-mail client. If the fluff in an e-mail client isn't
sufficient for your needs, augment it with something specific and better
for your purpose.

 

[baobob]

Brian, Diane, VanguardLH:

Thanks very much for responses.

***

[I guess I don't fully understand all points made in the latter's,
very-much-appreciated, long reply:

1. The subject field is useless. It either is vanilla words, or uses
those camouflaging techniques to render offensive words unparsable.

2. 80% of the spam I currently get *is* deletable, and easily
deletable, by non-camouflaged keyword in either body or source. While
the body might only be one word--say, just the hyperlink "ClickHere",
the source contains its target URL, e.g. "www.google.com/sites/
adultcontent".

But in the Right-Click context menu for that hyperlink, Windows
disables item 'Properties' is disabled. Huh? When you *Left*-Click on
it, Windows takes you to the offending site. Yet when you ask Windows
to *display* the name of that site, it refuses. This isn't software.
This is pathetic.

3. For my purposes Outlook 2002's Rules Wizard does admirably go
*almost* the whole way in enabling me to delete most spam. But the
Rules Wizard's withholding from access by the user of *any* aspect of
the message is, at least in this layman's view, complete software
design meltdown. The Wizard lets you delete spam by *dozens* of
criteria. So why not one additional criterion--HTML source?

My friends, we are still in the Dark Ages of computing, wherein 50% of
the user's time is still spent doing part of the software
manufacturer's job.

***

Thanks much all again.

***

 

[Bob I]

Brian, Diane, VanguardLH:

Thanks very much for responses.

***

[I guess I don't fully understand all points made in the latter's,
very-much-appreciated, long reply:

1. The subject field is useless. It either is vanilla words, or uses
those camouflaging techniques to render offensive words unparsable.

2. 80% of the spam I currently get *is* deletable, and easily
deletable, by non-camouflaged keyword in either body or source. While
the body might only be one word--say, just the hyperlink "ClickHere",
the source contains its target URL, e.g. "www.google.com/sites/
adultcontent".

But in the Right-Click context menu for that hyperlink, Windows
disables item 'Properties' is disabled. Huh? When you *Left*-Click on
it, Windows takes you to the offending site. Yet when you ask Windows
to *display* the name of that site, it refuses. This isn't software.
This is pathetic.

3. For my purposes Outlook 2002's Rules Wizard does admirably go
*almost* the whole way in enabling me to delete most spam. But the
Rules Wizard's withholding from access by the user of *any* aspect of
the message is, at least in this layman's view, complete software
design meltdown. The Wizard lets you delete spam by *dozens* of
criteria. So why not one additional criterion--HTML source?

My friends, we are still in the Dark Ages of computing, wherein 50% of
the user's time is still spent doing part of the software
manufacturer's job.

The "we" part is incorrect. Outlook 2002 is nearly 8 years old and there
has been 2 newer versions released since then. Also if you aren't
using spamfiltering software that is currently available, then you are
just neglecting to keep up with software abilities.