Spam Filters

  • Thread starter Thread starter dave smith
  • Start date Start date
what is the general concensus on the best freeware Spam filter?
Click to expand...

I was a big Spampal fan, but I recently tried K9 and like it much
better! http://keir.net/k9.html

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee <><
Know Christ, Know Peace
No Christ, No Peace

Remove yourhat to reply
Home Page - www.mistergeek.com
Blog - mcwtlg.blogspot.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
dave smith ([email protected]) wrote...

I use and recommend SpamBayes. Works very well for me as an Outlook
plugin, although it can also apparently be used as a POP3 proxy with
other mail clients.

http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/

Ian
Click to expand...

Boo! Hiss! Outlook! :-)
I am forced to use it at work...I find it too much of a resource hog for
what I need. Moz works just fine at home.

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee <><
Know Christ, Know Peace
No Christ, No Peace

Remove yourhat to reply
Home Page - www.mistergeek.com
Blog - mcwtlg.blogspot.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
There are basically 2 methods for filtering: Bayesian and DSBL. Bayesian
filter catches more spam, but needs to be "trained" and can produce false
positives, especially if you recieve much more spam than non-spam mails.
DNSBL blocks known spammer servers and has a smaller hit-rate (about 80%-90%
in my experience) but produces far less false positives. SpamPal can use
both methods as well as other plugins an I highly recommend it.

what is the general concensus on the best freeware Spam filter?
 
dave said:
what is the general concensus on the best freeware Spam filter?
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of POPFile, www.getpopfile.org
I've tried others, including the ones mentioned so far, and like this
the best.

It's a Bayesian filter, so it requires training, but I've brought it up
to 97% reliability before. Installation requires a bit of work, but the
explanations are good, and it is worth it.
 
cactus said:
I'm a fan of POPFile, www.getpopfile.org
I've tried others, including the ones mentioned so far, and like this
the best.

It's a Bayesian filter, so it requires training, but I've brought it
up to 97% reliability before. Installation requires a bit of work,
but the explanations are good, and it is worth it.
Click to expand...

That's all? K9 is operating at 99.78% efficiency for me and I think
that's low.
 
what is the general concensus on the best freeware Spam filter?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure from your question if this answer is OT, but I think
Mailwasher is unbeatable.

mike
 
what is the general concensus on the best freeware Spam filter?
Click to expand...

There are 3 kinds of spam filters. Server, proxy and client. It would help
if you stated what type you want and what email client you use.
 
badgolferman said:
cactus wrote:




That's all? K9 is operating at 99.78% efficiency for me and I think
that's low.
Click to expand...
I've achieved that level, but had a system crash and lost all my
filtering data.

I'll get back there.

I tried K9 a while back, but found it rather limited. I like the
Bayesian filters because they are trainable.
 
cactus said:
I've achieved that level, but had a system crash and lost all my
filtering data.

I'll get back there.

I tried K9 a while back, but found it rather limited. I like the
Bayesian filters because they are trainable.
Click to expand...

Limited in what way? It also uses Bayesian filtering and if you choose
DNS blacklists. There is a server check ability to delete spam
manually before you ever download it. If filtering spam is the main
objective it would be hard to beat K9. By the way, I was wrong, it is
99.90%.
 
There are 3 kinds of spam filters. Server, proxy and client. It
would help if you stated what type you want and what email client
you use.
Click to expand...

Is there an efficiency difference between the three types?

Thanks


--
Take care.

roadster3043

ICQ 154116780
Yahoo intuxicated
MSN jmfix at hotmail dot com
AIM roadster3043
 
roadster3043 said:
Is there an efficiency difference between the three types?

Thanks
Click to expand...

My preference is for server side filtering if implemented properly
(mailserver dumps suspect emails in my account's spam folder
rather than automatically deleting them in case of error),
it avoids me downloading spam or running any anti-spam
software.

If the mailserver provides IMAP access so I can check
the spam folder without downloading the email bodies,
and user message rules, preferably with support for regular
expressions all the better.

I try to avoid spam in the first place by using disposible
addresses as much as possible (Spamgourmet.com,
jetable.org/en/index)

I currently use my gmail account to filter out spam
sent to my (e-mail address removed) address
and it is reasonably effective.
 
badgolferman said:
cactus wrote:




Limited in what way? It also uses Bayesian filtering and if you choose
DNS blacklists. There is a server check ability to delete spam
manually before you ever download it. If filtering spam is the main
objective it would be hard to beat K9. By the way, I was wrong, it is
99.90%.
Click to expand...
Maybe I didn't like the version I was using. May be worth another look.
 
There are basically 2 methods for filtering: Bayesian and DSBL. Bayesian
filter catches more spam, but needs to be "trained" and can produce false
positives, especially if you recieve much more spam than non-spam mails.
DNSBL blocks known spammer servers and has a smaller hit-rate (about 80%-90%
in my experience) but produces far less false positives.
Click to expand...

Just curious here. How does the list of DNS Blacklisted Servers get
update? Is there a designated organization that does this? Is there a
current list of blacklisted servers available anywhere?
 
Maybe I didn't like the version I was using. May be worth another
Click to expand...
look.

I'm tried k9 too, I find the blacklist pretty useless and slow. Bayesian
filters are generally sufficient to reach 99.5++ level.

One thing to note about k9, development seems to have ceased , no new
version for 8 months already.
 
Just curious here. How does the list of DNS Blacklisted Servers get
update? Is there a designated organization that does this? Is there a
current list of blacklisted servers available anywhere?
Click to expand...

1. the list contains more home pc's that it does servers,
2. each list owner updates their own,
3. the contents of the lists a moving target.
 
Back
Top