Re: Spam
- From: Tim Hill <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:43:24 +0000 (GMT)
In article <m2abnbtal9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Raymond Wiker
<raw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Hill <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
In article <m2r6got7fn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Raymond Wiker
<raw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Hill <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
In article <m28x2wush7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Raymond Wiker
<raw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anyway, the OP was concerned about spam, not privacy... google
has the best spam filter of all providers; it catches more spam,
and has fewer false positives.
Wow. You can back that up with a reference?
No. All I can do is suggest that you do a web search for "gmail
spam filter", read a few of the articles in the result set, and make
up your own mind.
Odd. Normally I would expect anyone to back up their own claims.
Please be prepared to back-up what you assert. If you can't then the
world will assume you were exaggerating or telling lies. Telling
people to 'ask Google' - which led to some very dubious blogs by the
way - is not acceptable to most people as evidence of anything.
I did also suggest that you could use one of the other search engines
- I see that you conveniently snipped that bit.
Yes, I did. It is not up to me or anyone else to substantiate your claims
for you using /any/ search engine.
How do you expect me to back up such a claim, anyway?
My point exactly. Your assertions above are not based in fact. It seems
you may have been reconstructing the impression you have been given as
the gospel truth. Perhaps you should have added 'IMHO'.
I use gmail myself, and have compared its effectiveness with other spam
filtering mechanisms.
Such as?
Never mind: gmail's better than some, worse than others.
I have also read various articles (on the internet,
including, but not limited, to, the gmail blog). I do *not* have an
official test of all extant spam filtering mechanisms, with a ranking
that clearly puts google at the top.
No, I doubt they'd be there.
No gmail here http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/spam-filters/
[Snip]
gmail may well have the best spam filtering,
<insert name of ISP> may well have the best spam filtering,
I may well win the lottery. ;-)
but I have not put forth convincing arguments that this is the case.
I'm afraid not. Evidence, not argument, is what is needed. Many of us
will continue to doubt claims that large corporations get anything right.
;-)
[Snip]
If you don't check your spam folder, you're a fool.
It depends on your ISP and the anti-spam technologies they employ. I
agree that ISPs with dodgy spam spotting need to be checked up on.
[Snip]
, and user-tagged spam can lead to false positives and I
suspect this is at the heart of gmail et als' problems.
Could you tell me more about gmail's problems with identifying spam?
You know, *provide references*?
I could send you copies of emails which have ended up in spam bins at
gmail etc., but that would be a breach of privacy. Some were emails with
files attached, some of which were the same files linked from here:
http://www.timil.com/tft2/eSqueeze/menu.htm
All of them were sent only to subscribers in variously sized batches
using a locally held and managed distribution list. All innocent and
above-board but 'spammed' thanks to flawed analysis by - in this case -
hotmail.
I though this was a well known phenomenon of dealing with such ISPs?
[Snip]
If you want to rely on address-based filtering
I do
you are at least 2 years behind
old <> bad
the state of the art in spamming... most spam these days come from
botnets,
You point is? Zombies still use an IP address, don't they?
IP address-spotting may not be state-of-the-art but still widespread as
it is the most accurate method. If it inconveniences an idiot with an
unprotected machine s/he will learn to keep it clean.
and there is absolutely no way that you can use
blacklisting to stop this without throwing away all legitimate mail
coming from the infected PCs
....or any PCs on the same intranet but that is the general idea. If you
suddenly find none of your email is getting through....clean your PC(s).
[Snip]
... have demonstrated sufficient
lack of knowledge (or failed to argue convincingly) about google and
spam that I would never trust either of you with my email.
<cough />
I have no interest in your email, nor using gmail, but it is clear you
obtain some of your information from muddied, biased or under-informed
sources, and confuse opinion with fact. (PV seems to be adopting greylist
technology on his servers which uses IP addresses and sender/recipient
details in order to identify new sources which are temporarily bounced as
it expects only non-spammers to try again).
Oh, one more thing: the best argument I've seen in this thread for not
using gmail was that some people do not want to send email to gmail
account. I hadn't thought of that...
Quite, though I'd not go that far myself. I'm not _that_ paranoid and
could care less about how much a marketing organisation knows about me,
just so long as they never phone or send processed trees through my
letterbox.
Of course, to bypass the gmail spam filter, at one time all you had to do
was send the spam as an image attachment...
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/05/how-to-bypass-gmail-spam-filters.html
Lol. My ISP had this beaten. I saw none and continue to see only a
couple of spams a week and suffer no missed messages ever of which I am
aware. I did have a Zombie on a network once, long ago, and paid the
price.
www.spamhaus.org is an excellent source of info about spammers. and
http://www.spamhaus.org/effective_filtering.html an interesting read.
T
--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* (tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)
.... "Never shame to hear what you have nobly done" Coriolanus, Act ii, Sc.2
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Qercus: eBay articles
- Next by Date: Re: Qercus: eBay articles
- Previous by thread: Re: Spam
- Next by thread: Re: Spam
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
