From: "Stephen Shaw"
Subject: Re: E-mail from Korea, China or Taiwan no longer accpted
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:23:29 +0200
Organization: The South African Internet Exchange
References: <3E18D84D.F137FED7@iquest.net> <3E1BB7CB.F0C0F811@mfi.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jan 2003 02:21:38 GMT
User-Agent: Pan/0.13.2 (I wwwondeling why alla boppah ferra pushing in?)
On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 08:19:58 +0000, Lizard Blizzard wrote:
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> Lizard Blizzard 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
>>>>On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:18:22 -0800, Lizard Blizzard
>> It works by checking with databases of SpamCop and others, plus any
>> E-Mail name or domain name you want to blacklist. It also tells you
>> that some messages are infected.
> Thanks. I've gone to their web site and read the stuff, and I know
> essentially what it does. But what they don't get into any detail is how
> the program does filtering, and that is the key question.
> A couple quick(?) comments. I am certainly not going to run a prog that
> does nothing but tag an email 'spam', 'probably spam', etc., and leave it
> in the inbox. If the filter can't remove the crap from the box, then it
> is not saving me time in having to deal with the spam.
> Consequently if the spam filters have false positives then it is liable to
> reject a wanted email. And this is what Bayesian filters are better at
> than filters that use regular espressions. I am already using Procmail,
> which uses reg expressions to do the filtering and I am familiar with its
> capabilities, because I wrote many of my own filters.
> So I do not need to use some new software that does what I am already
> If any freeware is not forthcoming in how it works, then I could not in
> good conscience recommend it, no matter how many people rave about its
>> So, basically you and other people decide what is spam, not some
>> computer program.
> That's not an effective spam filter. All it is doing is parsing the spam
> and labeling it as to what category it believes the spam to be in, and
> leaving it up to a human to delete it. I guess one would call it a
> prefilter, and the human would do the actual filtering. In any case,
> Thanks again.
TANSTAAFL it might be but Linux is getting close to it. Try looking at