Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

PeterJ's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)



  1. Will you two cut it out please? Thank You.
  2. telnet to imap.spamcop.net gives: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 UIDPLUS CHILDREN NAMESPACE THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT THR AD=REFERENCES SORT QUOTA IDLE STARTTLS] Courier-IMAP ready. Copyright 1998-2003 Double Precision, Inc. See COPYING for distribution information. So your guess of Courier is correct.
  3. Consider using a mail client that has better IMAP support, although MS added lots of bells and whistles with Outlook 2003 they have not improved IMAP much. See thi slink for old but useful info: http://weblogs.asp.net/omars/archive/2004/02/19/76061.aspx
  4. I have read good things about XWall, but have no experience with it. It has an amazing feature set for $400 and the licensing is not based on the # of users. Take a look at the change log and you will see that the author is quick to update the program with new features...for example XWall already has capabilty for SURBLs and SPF. Again, I have never used it, so do not take my word, research it if you are interested. PeterJ
  5. Great example. That is odd that no URIBL tests tripped from SpamCop's implementation of SA as last I knew we are using them... It would be great if JT took a look at this and could confirm no issues with SpamCop's setup. I took a look at some of my recent spam and I have seen URIBL tests being tripped at least in a couple spam messages from blades 1,2,3,4 , and 6. I have not seen a recent message from blade 5 with URIBL tests being tripped, but this could just be a conincidence. Anyone else see any patterns? PeterJ
  6. Here is a list of the default tests performed by SA 3.0. Bear in mind that JT could have modified scoring on any of these and additional tests could have been added. http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_0_x.html My guess is that if you posed your question to SpamAssassin administrators and programmers in general they would expect messages such as the one you have posted to get caught by bayesian scoring that would have tipepd the scale up to 4 or 5 total points. Keep in mind that SpamCop's implementation of SA includes neither blacklists nor bayesian techniques therefore this is irrelevant. Long story short is that SpamCop is harnessing some of the power that SA allows for and it is still quite effective. Since it is unlikely that the bayesian or blacklist portions of SA will be added on...if the SpamCop's filtering is not adequate for you, I recommend taking matters into your own hands and using a bayesian filter or some other kind of client filter to help with the few emails that are not getting caught. As you will find elsewhere I am a strong believer in POPFile PeterJ
  7. Although you can simply wait this inconvenience out, if you wish to do more, intelligent sorting programs that utilize bayesian techniques such as POPFile can be used to at least help you sort out the "bounces" and the "remove requests." See here for how someone did this: http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=1832024 PeterJ
  8. SpamAssassin 3.0 release info can surely be found at their site, however I have posted Daniel Quinlan's announcements from 9/22 in the Lounge: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2709
  9. In case anyone cares to check out the two recent announcements regarding the SpamAssassin 3.0 release they are pasted below. The following quote is from Daniel Quinlan and can be seen in context here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.sp...n.general/56288 The following quote is from Daniel Quinlan and can be seen in context here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.sp...n.general/56289
  10. Thanks for updating SpamAssassin JT! I know that many SpamCop mail users will appreciate the significant improvements that the SpamAssassin team have made in version 3.0. My favorite improvement is SURBL checking and it is fitting that SpamCop mail users who report websites in spam via SpamCop will now directly benefit from this action by contributing to at least one SURBL. A suggestion to SpamCop mail users who have their SpamAssassin thresholds set very low (at 1, 2, or 3 perhaps), I believe that it will be wise to raise your threshold up to 4 or 5 since SpamAssassin 3.0 will be more effective than you were used to. You may find that with a higher setting for your SpamAssassin, you can still effectively filter the spam while hopefully not having to whitelist. I think I will test the new SA out and turn off my other mail filtering and sorting for the time being. Way to be on top of upgrading JT, afterall it was only released yesterday!
  11. Not "tuning", "turning on"...as in choose to use SURBL checks in SpamCop's SA implementation. This can be done with either the current version that I assume SpamCop is still running or with the soon to be released SA version 3. Note that I am not suggesting that JT turn on DNSRBL checking internal to SpamCop's SA, nor am I rehashing the whole bayesian thing, only suggesting that adding SURBL checks to SpamCop's current SA scoring would be beneficial. SpamCop mail users would not be providing any feedback in regards to this setup in the form of "tuning" or "training." Also, as noted elsewhere, JT likes SA rules/tests that have very low false positive rates and SURBL tests so far have fallen in this category. Link to SURBL info
  12. Your two messages are good examples of a SpamAssassin implementation at your provider that is more optimally setup when compared to SpamCop's implementation of SA. Note that the differences in the scores are drastic and this is because of several reasons. On the first message your provider is using both DNSRBL and SURBL checks to contribute to the overall SpamAssassin score. On the second message perhaps they are still using both, however it only tripped the SURBL checks and not the DNSRBL ones. Thanks for posting these messages they help confirm my feeling that SpamCop's SA implementation is not optimal. In a recent thread on the topic of SURBLs I asked JT to comment on the possibility of setting SURBL checks in place, however he rarely makes an appearance in the forums these days. Our best bet for JT improving SpamCop's SA is when SpamAssassin 3 is officially released and then ask him to consider implementing this *with* turning on the SURBL checks. I think SpamAssassin 3 is currently at RC4, so I imagine it cannot be too much longer before it is officially released. PeterJ
  13. Microsoft's was Caller ID, but reading up at http://www.microsoft.com/senderid, indicates that Caller ID, SPF, and Submitter Optimization were rolled into "Sender ID Framework" prior to submission to the IETF. It was interesting to read what is going on with discussion on the licensing for the "Sender ID Framework", here is a paragraph from the following article: http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3399421 Figures once MS got invovled the licensing would go to hell...
  14. I am not exactly sure what issue you are describing, but I am going to guess that you cannot successfully load websites after clicking on hyperlinks in your tesco webmail... If your question was how to get into you mail to begin with then go to: http://webmail.tesco.net/ Otherwise the following Microsoft Knowledge Base articles may be useful: Links not properly opening from Outlook Express Links not properly opening from Internet Explorer Also, since you recently performed a system restore it would likely be wise to make use of the Windows Update site to ensure that your computer is updated properly. Welcome to the SpamCop web forums, PeterJ
  15. I forgot to inlcude a quote from JT (Feb 17, 04) in these forums: This was part of his response to a request for improving SpamCop's SpamAssassin implementation. I wanted to bring this back up because it is very relevant to the topic of SURBLs. "Big Evil" was great while it lasted, I nice list of spammy URLs that SpamAssassin could check against and Chris Santerre (of SA fame) did a great job of manually maintaining the list. As JT mentions above, one had to email Chris and request that a legitimate URL be removed from the list and then every time an updated list would come out SpamAssassin administrators would then need to incorporate this. It becomes pretty clear that over the long haul this became too cumbersome...guess what replaced it? SURBLs! At least one of the SURBLs that Jeff Chan and company have developed has absorbed the "Big Evil" list. Just wanted to bring this up as further evidence as to why SpamCop should implement the use of a SURBL in the SpamCop SpamAssassin implementation. My logic on this as follows: JT liked and was using "Big Evil", JT likes "very safe" rules, "Big Evil" is no longer being developed and has been absorbed by a SURBL, therefore JT should look into implementing a SURBL to maintain SpamCop's SpamAssassin efficacy. JT? (I know you have not posted in the forums for months probably, but if you read this it would be great to know your thoughts.)
  • Create New...