RitaP said:
I sure hope someone can help. It seems no matter how many rules I have set
up for the term "viagra" and it's derivatives to be sent to the junk folder -
I'm still getting them in the inbox.
The variations are extremely high in count and you won't have enough disk
space to define them all. For example, via<b></b>gr<bogus>a could be used
to slice up the word into separate strings by slicing the string up with
valid or invalid HTML tags. Outlook is matching on the string and the
string ends at the HTML tags. Another trick is to use a table and have
parts of the string sliced across cells in the table, or to slice the string
across divisions in the HTML document using the <DIV> tag. All it takes is
for intervening HTML code to slice up the string so Outlook can't see it as
one string of contiguous characters.
If you want to identify and handle spam, you need to use an anti-spam
program that uses the public blacklists (e.g., SpamHaus and SpamCop) of
known spam sources but who also keep those lists up to date. SpamPal (free)
is one that uses the blacklists of known spam sources. There should be
others, too. I think Mailwasher uses blacklists (but only in the paid
version).
There are Bayes-based anti-spam programs to help detect spam but these are
guessing schemes based on the weighting of keywords in the e-mail and their
historical use in your e-mails. Also, they are just as susceptible to the
HTML slicing up of those keywords. I've use both the Bayes plug-in for
SpamPal and the SpamBayes filter and found them less effective than using
the blacklists (of which I only use SpamHaus and SpamCop since the others
are not usable against a single e-mail but to rate the spamminess of a
source or are too slow to update their list).
You did enable the anti-spam filter option up on the mail server for
whomever is your e-mail provider, right?
I've blocked every address they come in on
Worthless. Spammers don't use their own e-mail address. They might use
yours in which case you would end up blocking your e-mail address. They use
e-mail addresses that they harvested or are in the recipient list to which
they sent, so you end up blocking folks that never sent you e-mail. Or they
use bogus e-mail addresses which may be valid or not but don't point to
them, so you add a bunch of worthless e-mail addresses that will never point
at the spammers. They change their bogus e-mail address everytime they spew
their crap.
<Ding dong>
<You open the door>
Them: "Hello. I'm John. I'm here to sell brushes."
You: "No thanks. Bye."
<Close door>
<You add John to your list of blocked doorbell pushers>
<Ding dong>
Them: "Hi there. I'm Jo..., er, Mark. I'm selling encyclopedias."
You: "Aren't your John?"
Them: "No, I'm Mark. Want to buy a sampler book?"
You: "No thanks. Bye."
<You add Mark to your block list?
<Ding dong>
Them: "Gud'day, mate. Jack's the name. Selling siding's my game."
You: "Um, aren't you Mark that was John?"
Them: "Naw, bloody untrue. I've have a deal but only good t'day."
You: "No thanks. Bye."
<You add Jack to your block list>
<Ding dong>
Them (in falsetto): "Hi, I'm Mary. Want to buy some cosmetics?"
You: "Okay, you're Mark, er John or whatever, wearing a wig!"
Them (in falsetto): "No need to insult me because I have a manly face."
You: "No soliciting here. Goodbye."
<You add them to your list>
<Ding dong>
<Here you again, and again, and again>
The cycle continues because your list blocks on name (e-mail address)
which they change every time they visit your door (mailbox). Blocking
spam based on e-mail address is stupid. It doesn't work. It can't
work. It won't work. Only if the boob always uses the same e-mail
address will blocking them on that criteria work to eliminating seeing
their e-mails. Even neophyte spammers are a bane but they aren't boobs.
