 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Networking / July 2005Mac Mail junk filter not working
I'm running 10.4.1 on an iMac G5. I migrated from an older version of Eudora to Mac Mail, using the Eudora Mailbox Cleaner application. I used only 1 filter in Eudora, and I have since deleted it. My Junk mail filter in Mail is not marking any junk, of which I get plenty. I have it set in Training mode. My settings are: Enable junk mail filtering, checked Leave it in my Inbox, checked Exempt if sender of message is in my address book I have tried "Trust junk mail headers set by my ISP" both enabled and disabled. When I click on Advanced, the filter description looks right (If mail is Junk AND if it is not from someone in my address book, color it brown). Just for fun, after this was obviously not working, I added the same filter under my Rules setting and made it first in line. No help. I get 50+ pieces of spam a day. So for the last week I have been dutifully marking them as junk, but I have yet to have the system identify an incoming one as such. Is this a Tiger problem? I know that when I first tried the Mac Mail program, junk filtering was working. But I only started seriously using it after I installed Tiger, and now it isn't. Thanks for any help, Amanda In article <amanderr-C4C9EF.16204812072005@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com>, > I'm running 10.4.1 on an iMac G5. I migrated from an older version of > Eudora to Mac Mail, using the Eudora Mailbox Cleaner application. I used > only 1 filter in Eudora, and I have since deleted it. > > My Junk mail filter in Mail is not marking any junk, of which I get > plenty. ... > Is this a Tiger problem? I know that when I first tried the Mac Mail > program, junk filtering was working. But I only started seriously using > it after I installed Tiger, and now it isn't. Can't help you specifically with Mail, but in just in case you do not get it filtering, try SpamSieve in conjunction with Mail. Works well for me (using Eudora), and I do get more junk than you unfortunately. HTH Marc  SignatureSwitzerland/Europe <http://www.heusser.com> remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail In article <marc.heusser-3FB8E4.07242213072005@news.cybercity.ch>, Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid> wrote: > In article > <amanderr-C4C9EF.16204812072005@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Marc Thanks to everyone who posted. Today, for the first time, it marked TWO pieces as spam. Gosh, are spammers getting that smart, or is the filtering that poor? I use SpamCop for my other accounts, which does well, but the one in question (a university account) I haven't figured out how to forward to them. I'll look into Spam Sieve, and also k e e p o n t r a i n i n g the Mail program. Thanks, Amanda > Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > pieces as spam. Gosh, are spammers getting that smart, or is the > filtering that poor? The spammers are definitely getting better at evading Bayesian type filters, a type which I think Apple Mail uses. Also it takes a while to train such filters. I used a corpus of 13,000+ messages to train my filter originally and have probably fed 150,000+ messages through it since then. And still the bletcherous "Confidence is back" Viagra spam gets through. Daily. You won't get perfection, but as you train the filter you should see rejection rates at or above 90%. Amanda Robin schrieb: [...] > Thanks to everyone who posted. Today, for the first time, it marked TWO > pieces as spam. Gosh, are spammers getting that smart, or is the > filtering that poor? [...] Some of the spammers are astounishing smart. They have access to the commonly used spam detectors, flood them with spam and look what remains undetected. Then they optimise their spam to fool the filters. Only spam that cannot be detected by the state-of-the art filters is spread to the poor victims. I already saw a job advertisment for a position as spam optimiser. Fortunately most of the spammers don't invest so much efford and send out unoptimised spam. How much your spam filter can protect you, depends on the smartness of the spamers that are after you. In the good old days, people who were smart enough to have a spam filter were also smart enough to ignore spam. Today, spam filters are too convinient. There are people behind spam filters who would actually respond to spam or even buy products advertised by spam. So it became profitable too trick spam filters. In other words: the more easy a spam filter is too handle, the less it will protect you in the long run. Geggo > Some of the spammers are astounishing smart. They have access to the > commonly used spam detectors, flood them with spam and look what remains > undetected. Then they optimise their spam to fool the filters. Only spam > that cannot be detected by the state-of-the art filters is spread to the > poor victims. That is why server side spam filters only filter part of the spam. A true Bayesian filter on the client side (like SpamSieve) will take care of the rest. And it cannot be circumvented as easily since it works by true probabilities of your (individual) good mail and spam mail. Therefore the spam filters will work on different parts according to each individual's mails. Get a good client spam filter, and train it. I get some 100-200 spam mails a day, and SpamSieve takes good care of them :-) HTH Marc SignatureSwitzerland/Europe <http://www.heusser.com> remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail Marc Heusser schrieb: [...] > A true Bayesian filter on the client side (like SpamSieve) will take > care of the rest. And it cannot be circumvented as easily since it works > by true probabilities of your (individual) good mail and spam mail. [...] In theory your right. In practice, we all get the same spam. Of course, the ham is different. But most of us would classify a Wikipedia article as ham. If I was a spammer, I would train a Bayesian filter with real spam as spam and Wikipedia articles as ham. Then I would optimise my spam to pass that filter. I'm sure such a spam mail would fool most well trained Bayesian filters. The trick is that most filters are in fact very similar because they were trained with similar content for a similar purpose. Of course, I'm not apamer. Even if I was a spamer, it would not make sense to fool client side filtering. People smart enough to use such a filter won't read spam mails. Geggo I am not convinced by the argument that Spammers are getting better a the explanation for this problem. I was running Panther on a G5 an my Mail filtered out >99% of the junk. I upgraded to Tiger and my Mail filter out nothing. NOTHING. Even after a month of training. I don't see ho the spammers could improve so much in that one day it took me t convert to Tiger, or even during that one month of training after I upgraded -- matchbo macosx.com - The Answer to Mac Support - http://www.macosx.co > I am not convinced by the argument that Spammers are getting better > as the explanation for this problem. I was running Panther on a G5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that one day it took me to convert to Tiger, or even during that one > month of training after I upgraded. Me too. I was playing silly buggers with the .plist to get PGP working so I kept mousy quiet about the junk filter. SpamSieve is working quite well. Next time I reboot I gotta pay. It will be worth the money. Mail is more than a bit flaky in 10.4.2 and 10.4.1. Don't do anything too quickly while navigating your mailboxes with the keyboard. Too many of the Mac's new wonder programs are playing fast and loose with the HIG. Often in different ways. Somebody should bang Mail and Safari and Finder programmers' heads together. Firmly! SignatureTo de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 In article <amanderr-C4C9EF.16204812072005@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com>, Amanda Robin <amanderr@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm running 10.4.1 on an iMac G5. I migrated from an older version of > Eudora to Mac Mail, using the Eudora Mailbox Cleaner application. I used [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Thanks for any help, I see this too. In my case, I suspect it was caused by me fooling with the bundles settings in mail's plist in order to get an early version of PGP-9 encryption working the way I wanted it to. Now I can't get mail to resume filtering junk, even when I undo the changes I thought I made. I'm test-driving spam-sieve as a work around. It seems pretty good so far. SignatureTo de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 It seems like some people have great results with the Apple junk mail filter, and for others it doesn't help at all. It works great for me. I use Mail to check 6 email addresses that are all posted online in many places and get tons of spam, and the Mail junk filter gets rid of all of it. Maybe you should just keep on trying longer in training mode. I don't really know how long it took for mine to get trained, since when I started using it I used to get very little spam, perhaps one a day compared to around 100 a day now. |
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.