From: Lizard Blizzard
Subject: Re: E-mail from Korea, China or Taiwan no longer accpted
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:17:05 -0800
References: <3E18D84D.F137FED7@iquest.net> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 07:54:31 -0800, Lizard Blizzard
>> EEng wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:57:37 -0800, Lizard Blizzard
>>>> EEng wrote:
>>>>> Mail Washer. Free download. Do a Google for it. Best
>>>>> damned anti-spam utility ever. I used it for two weeks and
>>>>> ALL the spam stopped. Now when a new one shows up, I bounce
>>>>> it back once or twice and that's all it takes.
>>>> But how does it work? If it's a filter, it should be a
>>>> Bayesian filter, or else it will have false positives.
>>>> I checked their web page and thy do not say that it is a
>>>> Bayesian filter. I would not recommend this product, no matter
>>>> that it is freeware.
>>> It tells bulk automailers that the address is invalid so they
>>> automatically remove the address. It works best on bulk spam. I
>>> used it, it worked, who cares what method was used.. Proof is in
>>> the doing. I no longer get bulk spam from automailers.
>> I'm not sure what you mean by bulk spam & automailers. By
>> definition, spam is UBE, bulk email. And obviously it is not sent
>> manually, it is all done automatically by a mailing program.
>> Most spammers do not accept any replies (they send their spam thru
>> a relay), so I cannot see how the program would work on email
>> already in the inbox. If it rejected email at the server, then I
>> could see why, but I don't think it does that. But if the mail was
>> rejected at the server, the unfortunate relay has to deal with it,
>> not the spammer. He never sees the bounce, and that is fine with
>> him, since he doesn't have to deal with it. I have bounced email
>> for 5 or 6 years on one of my addresses, and the spammers still
>> send 3 or 4 spams a week to this address. So from experience I can
>> attest to the fact that most spammers don't remove addresses from
>> their lists.
> It bounces/deletes/etc from the server, not from my inbox and its
> working fine and I've eliminated approx 3 dozen spammers. They're
> not even showing up anymore at my server, so from current practical
> experience, I'd say it does work.
> I really don't know why you're debating tbis anyway. I mean hell, if
> someone tells me something works for them I don't tell them no it
I don't believe I said any such thing. As I have said, I already use
Procmail to filter my emails, and it works, somewhat. And I said that
if Mail Washer does the same, I know what Procmail's limitations are
concerning false positives and I would not recommend it. For someone
that uses email for their business, it would be plainly unacceptable to
have false positives when something as important as a sales lead or
order comes into the inbox and gets deleted as spam.
So until Email Washer is more forthcoming on how their filters work, I
still don't see how anyone would trust it. Think about it: if it
falsely deleted a spam and the user never knew about it, then the user
would fully trust the program, not knowing that it was causing grief to
people emailing him. "Didja get my email?" No!
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:18:22 -0800, Lizard Blizzard
>>>>>> zoldoff wrote: [snip]
----------------(from OED Mini-Dictionary)-----------------
PUNCTUATION - Apostrophe
Incorrect uses: (i) the apostrophe must not be used with a plural
where there is no possessive sense, as in ~tea's are served here~;
(ii) there is no such word as ~her's, our's, their's, your's~.
Confusions: it's = it is or it has (not 'belonging to it'); correct
uses are ~it's here~ (= it is here); ~it's gone~ (= it has gone);
but ~the dog wagged its tail~ (no apostrophe).
----------------(For the Apostrophe challenged)----------------
From a fully deputized officer of the Apostrophe Police!