Re: Spam Help

From: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] (lanwench_at_heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:56:04 -0400

Vanguardx wrote:

My goodness, what a novel! I can see this is a topic you take quite
seriously. :-)

> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com>
> wrote in news:OdIemqhjEHA.556@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>> I personally prefer SpamBayes. It doesn't install a potentially
>> clunky local proxy....works quite well, and is also free.
>
> Not quite true from what I read of SpamBayes at
> http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/. It can be used as an Outlook
> plug-in or as a local proxy just like SpamPal. As an Outlook
> plug-in, that is the only e-mail client you can use it with.

I don't use the proxy feature, and Outlook is all I would consider using
for mail anyway, and all I will support for my clients besides OWA. ;-)

> As a
> local proxy, any e-mail client can use it. So your claim that
> SpamPal is a clunky local proxy also applies to SpamBayes when it is
> used as a local proxy (because you don't want to use a plug-in to
> Outlook or you use more e-mail clients than just Outlook).
> Personally I don't see using a plug-in (to only one e-mail client) as
> less a clunky solution than using a proxy.

Well, I have had no problems using SpamBayes without a proxy. Don't get me
wrong - I used SpamPal quite some time ago and had no complaints with it. I
just prefer SpamBayes. A lot easier on my end users, too.

Since SpamBayes is *only*
> providing Bayesian filtering then its options are far fewer than what
> you get with SpamPal and its plug-ins, so SpamBayes smaller number of
> configurable settings probably fits well into a single tab page in
> Outlook's options.

Bayesian rocks.
>
> I don't just use Outlook for e-mail. I've found Outlook is just too
> flaky to leave it running all the time.

I do - and so do all my clients.

> Microsoft has yet to fix the
> problem of it leaving behind a remnant process in memory when you
> supposedly exit Outlook

Yep - but note that this doesn't happen regularly to me or any client of
mine not using PocketPC or fax software.

> which will interfere not only with subsequent
> loads of Outlook but can screw up other applications. It is also a
> bit of a pig for memory even when its GUI window is minimized when it
> is left running continuously so it can monitor for new e-mails.
> Perhaps in OL2003 there is now an option to show a tray icon for it

Yes...

> but in prior versions you needed to use a registry hack to get OL2002
> to use a tray icon (instead of consuming space in the taskbar with a
> button).

Or use a third party app like Outlock.

> Because leaving Outlook running all the time to have it
> monitor for new e-mails is a bit too much for resources, I prefer to
> leave an e-mail monitor utility loaded that will tell me when there
> are new e-mails.

I'm glad you have a good solution worked out for yourself. My clients rely
heavily on Outlook for far more than mail. In an office with more than a
handful of people, I use antispam software on the server level (or use a
third party cleaning/relay service) to keep it coming in at all.

> I use Magic Mail Monitor
> (http://mmm3.sourceforge.net) which also has filtering rules. That
> way, I can leave Magic loaded, have its tray icon tell me when there
> are new messages, and use its filtering rules to eliminate spam at
> the mail server. Magic goes through SpamPal just like Outlook so
> spam gets tagged. Once tagged, a rule in Magic deletes that suspect
> message from the mail server (but it has a logfile telling you which
> messages got removed by a server-delete rule so you can check for
> false positives).
>
> SpamPal's primary detection is in using DNSBLs (DNS blacklists of
> known spam sources) so you only need to have Magic download the
> headers.

Those are losing popularity due to the overzealousness of most who
administer them. Have you ever tried to get an innocent server or IP off
them? <yes, I read below>

> Bayes-based filters require that the entire message get
> downloaded. I haven't kept a running history of false positives but
> my recollection is that I've had 2 false positives since last
> February. I probably get 2 to 3 per week that leak past SpamPal and
> all the plug-ins.

> I'm not a fanatic

Due to the length of this post, may I good-naturedly suggest that this is
perhaps a case of protesting too much? <g>

<snip>

Quantcast