Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PeterJ

  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.)
  16. To those who have recently posted to this thread, if you have a sincere interest in Jeff Chan's initial idea, please note that he first posted regarding this quite a while ago. Since that time it is no longer an idea, it is real. Jeff Chan and others have developed the means to handle redirection sites, not sure about the use of unicode. SURBLs (spam URI Realtime Blocklists) have proven quite effective when combined with traditional blocklists, bayesian filtering, and other types of spam detection/scoring. I mention this only because I have not seen Jeff Chan around these forums for many months and would be surprised of his accidental return unless someone tells him his original thread is still alive. If you wish to reach him, his website on this topic has info on SURBLs, his email address, and available surbl mailing lists. Check it all out at: http://www.surbl.org/ A question for JT: Can we please implement URI checking in SpamCop's SpamAssassin setup? (Note that this will be included with v3.0 of SpamAssassin, soon to be released) If you are waiting for SA 3.0 to come out before trying this, I understand.
  17. I'll throw in my current usage of SpamCop for a contrast. I have had a SpamCop email account for around 4 years by now and have changed ISPs and moved once, so for starters having my primary email address (with SpamCop) separated from those who provide me internet service is a big draw for me. I typically forward whatever addresses I might have with my ISP at the time to my SpamCop mail account. I give out my SpamCop mail address all the time to friends and companies that I have relationships with. If I am skeptical of a place that wants an email addy for me, then I use one I created with my ISP for this purpose. Filtering and Whitelist setup: I have turned off all blacklists and SpamAssassin so that SpamCop is not doing any filtering for me at all. Also my whitelist is completely empty and I am not using it. Instead I am relying on POPFile to sort my mail for me into several folders. I am running the latest POPFile CVS which has support for IMAP accounts. POPFile is a bayesian based email sorting tool that allows me great flexibility when coupled with my SpamCop IMAP access. My installation of POPFile runs on my file server at home such that it runs 24x7 always sorting my mail as soon as it sees something new in my SpamCop account (via IMAP.) The advantages of this are excellent, because it means that none of my workstation computers are responsible for sorting, it all happens on my backend. It essentially gives me server side filtering (although my server) for my SpamCop mail account, a feature that many SpamCop users have requested over time. POPFile's support for IMAP remains young, but I have assisted with reporting bugs when I experience them, overall it is a great program. I have not tracked my filtering stats all that well but usually I seem to be at a 98% accuracy rating with POPFile's classifications. Reading Mail: I typically use Thunderbird to read my mail utilizing IMAP when at home, otherwise I use the SpamCop webmail interface (Horde IMP.) The glory of my POPFile setup is that regardless of where I check my mail, either at home with a client, or away with Horde, my mail is always sorted for me when I go to look at it. Reporting spam: I have found myself almost exclusively using the VER for reporting because it allows me to easily see the email addy and the subject and determine whether it is spam or not. If I use the webmail interface I find that I "miss" the email address and that the "Display Name" is not useful, sometimes even a hindrance. So, I use quick reporting from VER and report the 20 to 30 spam I get per day with this method. If I get busy and I do not make it to VER then I usually just delete messages older than a day before resuming my quick reports again. I do look through the "Quick Report" email repsonses I get back from SpamCop to primarily ensure I have not reported myself, but secondarily for mistakes that standout. Training my POPFile filtering: This is the easy part and another great thing about POPFile's IMAP support. When I get either a false positive or a false negative, simply moving the message to the correct folder (Inbox >> Held Mail or Held Mail >> Inbox) causes POPFile to reclassify the message and become aware of the mistake it made. Another benefit of POPFile being setup and running 24x7 on a server at my residence combined with IMAP support means that I can TOE (train on errors) when I am away from my residence and only using SpamCop's webmail acccess. All I have to do in SpamCop's webmail is move the mistakenly classified messages to their correct folder. Future: I intend to keep my SpamCop email address as my permanent address for the foreseeable future. For now I am very happy with my POPFile setup not only because it sorts spam for me, but also because it can sort other types of mail as well, such as newsgroups or work related mail. If and when JT upgrades to SpamAssassin 3, I may try it's filtering over my POPFile setup or perhaps even in conjunction, not sure yet. *** Note that POPFile's IMAP support has only been around for 3 or 4 months, so my above setup has not been in place for that long. Prior to this I still always relied on IMAP, but utilized all blacklists and a SpamAssassin setting of '3' I believe.
  18. My guess at what many of the SA people would say is that they would rely on bayesian scoring to apply a negative number to the email so it gets a resulting score below 5. PeterJ
  19. I am seeing the exact same error message, but allow me to clarify where I (and I assume others) am seeing this. I am *only* seeing this when trying to access my held mail on the VER page. I can log into webmail fine. I can view my held mail in Horde/IMP fine. I can report mail from my held mail folder in Horde/IMP fine. I am seeing the error message when I attempt to view my held mail while at the SpamCop website (not Horde/IMP.) This error is 100% reproducible for me at this time. PeterJ
  20. POPFile is bayesian based filtering software. A couple of sugestions for Cosmido: 1) Take POPFile out of the picture (temporarily disable) and determine if you can forward spam To SpamCop successfully. 2) Are you using the extension for POPFile that enables reporting to SpamCop (created by Jonathan Michaelson)? If so, then you should check out this thread here in the POPFile extensions forum: http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thr...forum_id=226152 PeterJ
  21. Fantastic! That means I helped Wazoo get some shut eye. I was loooking through the bug list too and did not turn up anything. When choosing to display only bugs (resolved or otherwise) for IMP I got a list of 107 items. I also checked their mailing list but found no one describing similar issues to what SpamCop mail users are seeing. I also noted that the current cvs is being referred to as IMP version 4, so apparently, after the recent v 3.2.4 the next release will be 4. For reference, bugs can be checked here: http://bugs.horde.org/search.php (pick queue IMP) Also, the mailing list for IMP is archived by gmane and can be accessed by http or nntp: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.horde.imp nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.horde.imp I might submit a message to the IMP mailing list asking if anyone else has seen these symptoms ever. PeterJ
  22. Most helpful Steve. From looking at Horde's IMP page it appears that IMP 3.2.2 was released on 2003-08-27, so this would likely be the version JT has setup currently. I also see that IMP 3.2.4 was released earlier this month. My motive was not to ask for an upgrade, but for other reasons. Since IMP is open source software it is relevant to consider that some bugs SpamCop users experience when using IMP have nothing to do with SpamCop at all. It may be useful to peruse the known bugs of a given version of IMP to determine if a particular issue that a SpamCop user experiences is widespread. Not sure if they use bugzilla or what, have not looked... But this is mainly why I was wondering about the version. Maybe a quick check of IMP's bugs might shed some light on the problem that people are seeing when you suddenly end up up in a different folder than the one you expected. It is possible that the source of the problem could be IMP and then the errors seen when reporting spam are only result of the IMP bug. All threads I am aware of on this issue below for reference: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1701 http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1623 http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1512 http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=999 Wazoo -- Any chance of merging some of these threads as you think appropriate? It would certainly help track the problem over time. PeterJ
  23. Does anyone know what version of Horde/Imp SpamCop is running? Or better yet, if the version is displayed anywhere once a SpamCop mail user logs in? I have not seen the version number displayed anywhere, but it would be useful to display it so as newer versions are released and JT upgrades then users that care will know. PeterJ
  24. Wazoo, SteveUnderwood, and others: I updated this possible FAQ today (6/25). I know everyone is distracted with the SpamCop website layout changes, no biggie. If any other SpamCop mail users have input please comment. PeterJ
  • Create New...