Everyone.net and aussiemail.com.au
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Power cut
Next: Find out external IP
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 15 Jan 2010 14:13 Red E. Kilowatt wrote: > keithr wrote: >> Gmail and hotmail are good though for disposable addresses. > > It appears that Hotmail doesn't do any spam filtering. Look through the options. You probably haven't turned it on. There should be various choices, such as (paraphrasing here): ( ) Let it all pour through ( ) Block obvious spam ( ) Be really aggressive (and trap a lot of legitimate mail) ( ) Accept mail only from those in my address book -- -bts -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
From: Red E. Kilowatt on 15 Jan 2010 17:12 Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: > Red E. Kilowatt wrote: > >> keithr wrote: >>> Gmail and hotmail are good though for disposable addresses. >> >> It appears that Hotmail doesn't do any spam filtering. > > Look through the options. You probably haven't turned it on. There > should be various choices, such as (paraphrasing here): > > ( ) Let it all pour through > ( ) Block obvious spam > ( ) Be really aggressive (and trap a lot of legitimate mail) > ( ) Accept mail only from those in my address book They have filtering options but they don't work very well. The middle option still lets a lot of obvious spam through. Yahoo does a much better job of filtering. -- Red
From: SG1 on 15 Jan 2010 18:22 "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAMTRAP(a)aww-faq.org> wrote in message news:3eneqi.f4l.17.1(a)news.alt.net... > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: >> Red E. Kilowatt wrote: >> >>> keithr wrote: >>>> Gmail and hotmail are good though for disposable addresses. >>> >>> It appears that Hotmail doesn't do any spam filtering. >> >> Look through the options. You probably haven't turned it on. There >> should be various choices, such as (paraphrasing here): >> >> ( ) Let it all pour through >> ( ) Block obvious spam >> ( ) Be really aggressive (and trap a lot of legitimate mail) >> ( ) Accept mail only from those in my address book > > They have filtering options but they don't work very well. The middle > option still lets a lot of obvious spam through. Yahoo does a much better > job of filtering. > > -- > Red I just forward the email to abuse(a)whatever they are using. > >
From: Jerry Stuckle on 15 Jan 2010 23:13 Rod Speed wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote >>>>>>>> keithr wrote > >>>>>>>> If you have your own domain you can roll your own disposable addresses. > >>>>>>> But dont get effortless spam filtering and cant hope to do anything like what gmail can do in that regard. > >>>>>> It depends on who you get your email through. > >>>>> Nope. The reason gmail can do much better at spam filtering >>>>> than anyone else is that they get a MUCH higher volume of >>>>> the world's email than anyone else so its MUCH easier for >>>>> them to identify what is being sent to a number of recipients >>>>> and so may be spam. > >>>> Not at all. > >>> Fraid so. > >>>> I get much less spam through my own server than I do through my gmail accounts. > >>> Irrelevant to that point that its possible for gmail to do far more than you can possibly do. > >> Incorrect. > > Nope, you cant apply the most useful test for potential spam, > whether the email has been sent to a large number of recipients. > I'm glad you think that is relevant. The rest of the world knows better. Smart spammers don't send their spam to thousands of people at one time. They send to a few hundred, then repeat the process. > Yes, you do need to do more than just that test, but you cant do that most useful test. > That is the LEAST useful test. One I don't even make. >>>> But that's because I now how to set up my spam filters. > >>> But you cant possibly work out what is spam from the same >>> thing being sent to hordes of other recipients. gmail can. > >> Neither can gmail. > > Wrong. > Please prove your statement. >> They don't own all the email servers in the world > > They dont need to. > >> - only a small part. > > They do in fact get much more of the world's email > going thru their system than anyone else does. > Please prove this statement. >> And number of recipients does not directly >> relate to whether the email is spam or not. > > It is however by far the best initial test to apply. > It is the WORST test to apply - in ANY circumstances. No spam filter I know of uses it. >>>> And my email logs show I get a bunch of spam filtered out every >>>> day. No false positives, either - unlike I can get when someone >>>> else filters spam. > >>> But you cant possibly work out what is spam from the same >>> thing being sent to hordes of other recipients. gmail can. > >> No better than I can with the blacklists I use. > > Black lists are useless with spam that deliberately comes from faked sources. > > AND gmail can use the same blacklist you use and can add to that > that test for what has been sent to a large number of recipients. > Enough said. You obviously have no idea how a blacklist works. >>>>> No one else can even come close in that regard just <Rest of garbage snipped> You obviously have NO idea how to configure spam filters. You obviously have NO idea even about the simplest processes involved in sending email. But then, that's what I would expect from someone who thinks gmail is a good mail server. I should have known better than to try to educate an idiot. I'm out of here. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: Craig Welch on 16 Jan 2010 07:47
Rod Speed wrote: > Its not the ONLY criteria I am using, fool. 'Criterion' Rod, 'criterion'. |