 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Outlook / New Users / May 2006Spam Filter for Outlook 2003, Recommendations?
I have Outlook main window > Tools > Options > Junk E-mail > set to Low because I'm scared I'll miss something if I set to High. I really don't know how High works. What kind of spam filters are available for Outlook 2003 that would block a message like the one represented below? The sender keeps changing its e-address so blocking that won't help. Should I use something that looks at the subject line? Header of a sample spam message (with my own addy munged): X-Kaspersky: Checked Return-path: <b.ConfirmAccounts.0-72dcaea-2122.kc.rr.com.-nehmo@001.theeconfirm.com> Received: from ms-mta-01 (ms-mta-01-smtp [10.15.8.71]) by ms-mss-04.rdc-kc.rr.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.10 (built Dec 26 2005)) with ESMTP id <0IZR00ASGE0M4Q@ms-mss-04.rdc-kc.rr.com> for Nehmo AT kc.rr.com; Wed, 24 May 2006 02:26:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hrndva-mx-01.mgw.rr.com (hrndva-mx-01.mgw.rr.com [24.28.204.20]) by ms-mta-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.10 (built Dec 26 2005)) with ESMTP id <0IZR007WSE0G2B@ms-mta-01.rdc-kc.rr.com> for Nehmo AT kc.rr.com (ORCPT Nehmo AT kc.rr.com); Wed, 24 May 2006 02:26:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 001.theeconfirm.com ([66.195.91.161]) by hrndva-mx-01.mgw.rr.com with ESMTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 03:26:46 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by 001.theeconfirm.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA14624; Wed, 24 May 2006 01:12:29 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:26:46 -0600 (MDT) From: ConfirmAccounts <ConfirmAccounts@001.theeconfirm.com> Subject: Member #1277 - BestBuy #LGXB-4786 offer for Nehmo AT kc.rr.com To: Nehmo AT kc.rr.com Message-id: <200605240712.BAA14624@001.theeconfirm.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Original-recipient: rfc822;nehmo AT kc.rr.com -- (||) Nehmo (||) Spam Bully does a pretty good job with stuff like that. > What kind of spam filters are available for Outlook 2003 that would > block a message like the one represented below? The sender keeps > changing its e-address so blocking that won't help. Should I use > something that looks at the subject line? > Header of a sample spam message (with my own addy munged): I might choose a rule that looks for "theeconfirm" or "iPlanet Messaging" in the headers.  SignatureBrian Tillman > I might choose a rule that looks for "theeconfirm" or "iPlanet Messaging" in > the headers. I just got two more. They're in the same style and in plain text, but those terms weren't included. -- (||) Nehmo (||) > I just got two more. They're in the same style and in plain text, but > those terms weren't included. Well, then, look for anything common between them and use that. SignatureBrian Tillman > I might choose a rule that looks for "theeconfirm" or "iPlanet Messaging" in > the headers. I just got two more. They're in the same style and in plain text, but those terms weren't included. -- (||) Nehmo (||) I tried Spam Beyes(sp.) but didn't think it did much more than the Outlook filters - though the interface was fine. I'd suggest you try the HIGH setting, you can always pull out the mistakes from the "SPAM" folder that the junk gets put into. Just review the stuff filtered into the junk folder before deleting it. - John > I have Outlook main window > Tools > Options > Junk E-mail > set to Low > because I'm scared I'll miss something if I set to High. I really don't [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > -- > (||) Nehmo (||) > I'd suggest you try the HIGH setting, I set it to High. We'll see, but if you have to constantly check your Junk folder, then the purpose of the filter is pretty much defeated. And I *would* have to constantly check. I'm already in trouble for not responding to a particular email soon enough, and this was a normally-processed message. Previously, while on Low, at least I never had a legitimate message misrouted to Junk. We'll see how risky High is. Oh, I just discovered something about Outlook. In Windows applications, you can hold down the Shift and delete something and it'll bypass the Recycle Bin. Outlook works the same way. You can hold down the shift and you can bypass the Deleted Items folder. -- (||) Nehmo (||) > I set it to High. We'll see, It's catching them now. So far no false positives, but it's only been on High for 2 legitimate messages. -- (||) Nehmo (||) > I tried Spam Beyes(sp.) but didn't think it did much more than the > Outlook filters - though the interface was fine. Perhaps not at first, but the advantage to SpamBayes is that it's trainable and gets better over time. Outlook's filter can be changed only by Microsoft and it's static between updates. SignatureBrian Tillman I have been using Cloudmark Desktop for years, and it successfully filters 97%-100% of all incoming spam with *very* few false positives. It's not free, but when I look back to the time when I had to manually remove hundreds of spam messages from my Inbox - I shudder... > I have Outlook main window > Tools > Options > Junk E-mail > set to Low > because I'm scared I'll miss something if I set to High. I really don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Header of a sample spam message (with my own addy munged): > ... > I have been using Cloudmark Desktop for years, and it successfully > filters 97%-100% of all incoming spam with *very* few false positives. However, Cloudmark, in my opinion, suffers from the fact that it's driven by opinions other than your own. People flag what they believe is junk on their machines and that, in turn, makes it junk on YOUR machine. I'd rather not accept that. SignatureBrian Tillman >> I have been using Cloudmark Desktop for years, and it successfully >> filters 97%-100% of all incoming spam with *very* few false positives. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their machines and that, in turn, makes it junk on YOUR machine. I'd rather > not accept that. That *is* true, and it is a very good point to make! However, the system is very complex (with a rating level for all participants), and after using it for 3 years I have to say that it works very well for me. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.