Mozilla Adding Spam Filters

ksheka writes "Mozilla mail now has Spam Filters, using Bayesian filtering method, no less. This is a very good thing, because it learns from the spam you receive, and constantly modifies itself, based on new spammer techniques!"

Comments

DOWNLOAD NEW MOZILLA

[cscx]

And ENLARGE YOUR PENIS at the same time!

Click HERE!

Re:DOWNLOAD NEW MOZILLA

[wiredog]

Man, a perfect place for a goatse link, and you didn't put it in. Sigh. Kids these days.

Re:DOWNLOAD NEW MOZILLA

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded as a Troll?

THis is one of the best planted Goat Sex links I can thing of in receat history. This is funny, this is not a troll.

I'd mod it as funny if I had points today. (they expired Monday...)

Re:DOWNLOAD NEW MOZILLA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Moderation Totals: Troll=4, Interesting=1, Funny=7, Overrated=1, Total=13."

Overrated? Ok. Maybe.
Funny? You bet your ass.
Troll? Ehhhhh...maybe.
Interesting? WTF?

Who the hell modded this "Interesting"? Moderation in the hands of morons is certainly "Interesting" but no the parent post in this thread. RTFM before moderating!!!!!

Re:DOWNLOAD NEW MOZILLA

[wass]

Wow, that's the first time I ever saw a goatse.cx link modded up here on slashdot. what strange times we are living in... :-)

Re:DOWNLOAD NEW MOZILLA

[dimator]

Never seen goatse.cx link... must resist... mouse moving by itself... nooooo....

102 Features IE doesn't have

[Squeezer]

Now the list of 101 Mozilla features that IE doesn't have can be amended to 102 features! :)

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[cscx]

Keep in mind that IE is not a mail client...

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[crossseyed]

It doesn't mean they're not thinking about it, though...

http://research.microsoft.com/~horvitz/junkfilter. htm

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Yuan-Lung]

No, it is not, but outlook express, an application distributed with IE, is.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Shippy]

Not really. E-mail is Outlook's domain. Not IE. I think that list of 101 things is a great way to show the power and flexibility over IE, but some of them are just filler. For example:

• 98. Supports IRC Protocol - This is something I don't even use. This is just another program which should be separate but isn't and gives rise to the "mozilla is bloated" argument.
• 99. Open Source - Yeah, but good luck sifting through it ;)
• 100. Bugzilla - OK, lots of people use this, but Bugzilla != Mozilla. So it's not like Mozilla has built-in Bugzilla features... This is unrelated to the list.
• 101. Giant Lizards are Cool - 'Nuff said.

So, that brings it down to, what, 97? Still a pretty good list. However, I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE (and MS employees can already use these features), but we'll see if they're actually integrated.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[GreyPoopon]

However, I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE

It'll be nice to have this, but this is really just another good argument for competition and choice. If Mozilla (and Opera) didn't have this first, how long would it have been before the features came to IE? The same can be said for things that appeared in IE first and finally made their way to Netscape / Mozilla. This is why it's really nice to have some choices.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Shippy]

It'll be nice to have this, but this is really just another good argument for competition and choice. If Mozilla (and Opera) didn't have this first, how long would it have been before the features came to IE? The same can be said for things that appeared in IE first and finally made their way to Netscape / Mozilla. This is why it's really nice to have some choices.

This is completely true. I think Mozilla is giving IE a run for its money and Microsoft is realizing this. It's kinda nice to watch them play catchup in the browser market. It's been awhile. :)

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[mr_gerbik]

Now the list of 101 Mozilla features that IE doesn't have can be amended to 102 features! :)

Yeah.. but those 102 features are nothing when you compare them to the one major feature IE has over Mozilla, w3 compliance with HTML, CSS and XSL.

-gerbik

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[gabec]

Microsoft playing "catch-up"? Nonsense. Only, what, 9% of the internet users out there use browsers other than IE? Of that, how many of those alternate browsers have tabbed browsing and of those clients using those browsers how many actually *use* tabs?

I agree that Microsoft is scanning around and implementing good features, but no one other than /.'ers will ever know they got the idea from someone else. You're only playing 'catch-up' if there's something to catch-up to. IE has over 90% of the internet userbase, I'd say *that* was something to catch-up to.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

think Mozilla is giving IE a run for its money and Microsoft is realizing this.

And that's only one facet of OSS! Imagine what goes on over there with all the other mile stones OSS continues to make. :-)

P.S.
KDE 3.1 freakin' rules. I'm running RC3 now. It's REALLY nice...

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE

That's funny, I've heard the opposite. Seems some people at MS think the extensions available are good enough.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Anonvmous Coward]

"101. Giant Lizards are Cool - 'Nuff said."

What's ironic about that Giant Lizard is that it may get them sued out of existence. Yeah, that's a bonus. Whatever.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[afidel]

Popup killing and tabbed browsing are the two killer features that have allowed me to spread mozilla widely through my office. People see me surfing and ask what the tabs are or ask where the popup have gone. I tell them about mozilla and show them how easy it is to stop popups. Yes I know about crazybrowser which does both of these, but it does popup killing badly (it's an all or nothing thing, not just unsolicited popups).

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[wkitchen]

Microsoft playing "catch-up"? Nonsense. Only, what, 9% of the internet users out there use browsers other than IE? Of that, how many of those alternate browsers have tabbed browsing...

I suspect that Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera collectively make up most of that 9%. Given that all of those have tabbed browsing, then the answer is "nearly all of them". Or maybe not. I guess it really depends on how many of those 9% are surfing around using old versions.

and of those clients using those browsers how many actually *use* tabs?

Good question. I don't have any statistics, but I suspect the percentage is pretty high. Of the few Mozilla users I know, ALL use and love tabs. In fact, tabbed browsing has influenced many, including myself, to use Mozilla as their primary browser, resorting to IE only to deal with those increasingly rare sites that don't work with Mozilla (and significant portion of those fail only because of really stupid browser detection that causes the page to refuse even to try to load if it detects something other than IE). Mozilla is good enough at this point that I now use IE for less than 1% of my web browsing.

I agree that Microsoft is scanning around and implementing good features, but no one other than /.'ers will ever know they got the idea from someone else. You're only playing 'catch-up' if there's something to catch-up to. IE has over 90% of the internet userbase, I'd say *that* was something to catch-up to.

Of course MS isn't playing catch up in user share. No one claimed otherwise. But when it comes to features, MS definitely has some catching up to do.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[WowTIP]

I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE (and MS employees can already use these features), but we'll see if they're actually integrated.

Not to troll, but did anyone except me notice how the development of IE seemed to kind of, stop... when there no longer was any competition (since after NS4.xx, and yes, Opera and Konq and some other were worthy, but not much of a threat to MS dominance). Now it seems to be speeding up again, when they have got a worthy opponent.

Microsoft should really thank the OS movement for keeping them on the edge, without competition it seems they will pretty soon stagnate.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[bugbear]

IE doesn't do real spam filtering yet, but MSN 8 now does content-based filtering that learns by example. Since they brag that it uses a "patented" algorithm, I assume they're using this Bayesian filtering algorithm.

Before everyone starts worrying that MSFT has patented Bayesian filtering, (a) I don't think the patent would hold up well in court, because e.g. ifile is older and (b) patents are not a problem for open-source projects anyway.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[AKnightCowboy]

However, I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE (and MS employees can already use these features), but we'll see if they're actually integrated.

All they have to do is rip off the code from CrazyBrowser. Since I switched to using it I've rarely had to go back to plain IE (Crazybrowser uses IE's rendering engine and settings and such but seems to just wrap around it nicely). Blocks pop-ups nicely and does tabbed browsing.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Eccles]

# 100. Bugzilla - OK, lots of people use this, but Bugzilla != Mozilla.

No, but Mozilla does have a publicly accessible Bugzilla database, which is a feature. You can report bugs and get an idea of progress on them.

# 99. Open Source - Yeah, but good luck sifting through it ;)

I may not, but some people outside Netscape have, and have done interesting things as a result. ...and the lizard is cool.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[andy landy]

Is it? I thought Outlook Express was a virus-support API. I suspect the fact you can send email with it is a bug. :)

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Ageless]

Why do they care if they stagnate? MS gets to pay less developers, pay less for research and release fewer revisions (saving money) and people just keep buying it like it's the best thing ever.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[archen]

Is it? I thought Outlook Express was a virus-support API. I suspect the fact you can send email with it is a bug. :)

The joke's on you, Outlook Express IS the virus! =P

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually if MSN supports it, then it would probably be better for MS not to support spam filtering with IE. The would be taking away the selling points of MSN if they did.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been? That's exactly what happens to Microsoft products once they kill the competition in that market. Look at Microsoft Office as another example. If it weren't for Linux pushing them on the OS front (and mocking the stabilitiy of their software) there would be Windows ME Second Edition instead of WinXP.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is it? I thought Outlook Express was a virus-support API.

No, no, Outlook Express is for Internet Explorer what Composer is
for Mozilla or Netscape -- if you don't know HTML, you can use it
to create web pages. They won't be particularly well-designed, and
they won't validate, but the major legacy browsers everyone seems to
still use will display them, so you can put them up on your website.

The reasons it sends email is not a bug, but a feature (albeit one
that tends to be abused). It's not for sending general email, but
so that you can easily upload your web pages you create to certain
free website engines that can receive them by email (on the theory
that most people don't know how to use ftp, or else because ftp is
considered insecure. The usenet engine was included so that
multiple people can use it in a peer-to-peer fasion to collaborate
on the creation of a web page. For example, if your mom and grandma
want to create a web page, but they aren't sure how to get the
pictures of the family dog scanned in, you can let them write the
text about the dog, and you can put in the picture. You can pass
it back and forth on your private family news server until it's
ready for the family website.

The reason people started using Outlook Express for regular email
is because the email software that shipped with Windows 95 (called
Microsoft Internet Mail) was _so_ bad that it was more convenient
to use _anything_ else, including telnet, and so when Outlook
Express came out people jumped on that, and the rest is history;
Outlook Express now handles (on one end or the other) nearly 40%
of the internet's email, more than anything else except sendmail.

The virus API, as you suspected, was not a bug but a feature, but
the reasons for its inclusion are complicated and involve both
particle physics and JFK.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[jonadab]

Bugzilla is worth listing, because it makes the browser more usable.
(I don't mean just indirectly; the browser is more useful to me
because I can follow requests for new features and bugfixes that
matter to me, and upgrade when they land, rather than at arbitrary
times.)

However, more items on that list are filler than just the ones you
give. For example, XUL and skinnability are listed separately, but
XUL _provides_ skinnability. (Yes, it also provides the ability to
have things like the preferences toolbar, which would be worth
listing on its own if it were included rather than being a separate
download, but still, XUL is one feature, not two.) Some of the
other TLA buzzwords too, like RDF, are not meaningful features in
their own right at this time (though they could be in the future).
They are implementation details, and they don't matter enough to
the user to really deserve a place on the list. If we trimmed off
things like that, I think we could bring the list down to perhaps
80 or so.

Still, I can pick five entries on the list that when combined are
so meaningful as to render any browser that doesn't have them
_useless_ as far as I'm concerned. Tabbed browsing is on the top
of that list; Microsoft needs to buy out either crazybrowser or
one of the other tabbed browsing extensions for IE and include it
in IE7. Popup blocking is on the list too, and is a sufficiently
compelling feature that if IE had it, Netscape would be forced to
put the UI for it back into their commercial tree.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Anonymous Coward]

mr_gerbik, you have message(s) for you:

• Fuck off
• Die

Thank you for using (AC)Messenging service. Motto: from troll to troll

(for those of you that don't recognize the parent as a troll, MOZILLA is the browser that have full w3 compliance, not IE with it's twisted standards)

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. It would be unfortunate if it were impossible for different software projects to compete, i.e. for everything to be licensed under a single License, from a single organization.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[Salsaman]

Err yeah, that's probably because IE *comes with windows*. If a ham sandwich came with windoze, most likely 90% of internet users would eat a ham sandwich. Or something.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[stuuf]

The email sending is a feature, not a bug. It allows the propagation of worms.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[linuxcoder]

But how long is the list of undocumented IE features *cough bugs* that Mozilla doesn't have?

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have

[onomatomania]

However, I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE (and MS employees can already use these features), but we'll see if they're actually integrated.

Already exists. Crazy Browser uses the IE engine and adds tabs, popup blocking, easy toggling of images/videos/activex, "tab groups" that can be saved/opened together, etc. (it's freeware, too.)

I just started up popfile

[TerryAtWork]

from sourceforge and no problems so far.

Let you know how it does when it's trained.

Re:I just started up popfile

[netringer]

I've been running for popfile for just a couple of weeks. It's working amazingly well.

The fun thing is when it works on its own, like when you get a message from a subscribed list that it has never seen before and it knows that it ISN'T spam.

With popfile working so well I'm not in a hurry to have Bayesian filters built into the mail client.

Has anybody tried sharing the history data between Windows and Linux clients on a dual boot machine?

Re:I just started up popfile

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been running it under windows with cygwin,
I would imagine that if you can see the windows directory from linux (or vice versa) that it would be just a matter of starting popfile from that working directory under each os

Re:I just started up popfile

[focuss]

I agree its working amazingly well. I've been running it for about a month and am still running the outdated v.0.13.
So far have had only one false positive and that was from someone who prematurely sent before typing anything. I get one or two missed spams a week.
I'm running it on Linux and both my wife and I are connecting from Windows machines through it to separate mailboxes -- retraining it on both of our messages when needed.
I did most of the training on Windows and then just copied the whole install over to the Linux machine so I expect that it would work equally well in a dual-boot scenario.

Arms Race

[Camel Pilot]

But the spammers will develop Bayesian filters of their own to find the best content that will sneak by your filters.

Re:Arms Race

[TamMan2000]

Interesting thought, but they would have to have a large sample of YOUR valid email to train on...

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't work that way. Each person has their own Bayesian 'filter' so each person's tolerance for spam will be completely different.
For instance, someone who often receieves links to web pages, from strangers, their filter will let through more spam than someone who Never receives links from strangers.

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

Most spammers couldn't even spell "Bayesian", much less write any form of software using those concepts. ;-)

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

thats fine, but this isnt an arms race. because both sides are USING there weapons. and my weapons are effective, not 100% without error. even though that would be nice, its not possible, but if its %85-90 (which it is for me) then i dont care.

my filtering software will continue to improve, or i will switch to something else. either way, the vast majority of the spam is destroyed.

Re:Arms Race

[Schubert]

actually there is a great big gob of it out there... public mailing list archives.

Re:Arms Race

[jpetts]

But the spammers will develop Bayesian filters of their own to find the best content that will sneak by your filters

No they won't, unless the pattern (if there is one discernable in the S/N ratio) of replies they receive changes. As most spam, as far as spammers goes, disappears into a black hole, they have no way of learning how your filters are working.

And that's good filterin'!

Re:Arms Race

[Jahf]

Hey, fine, at least they will have work a bit harder to get through. I just wish Yahoo! mail would support this as I use Yahoo! for a public address for a lot of lists.

Though, since I use it to prevent SPAM, if the statistical methods work well enough maybe I can quit using Yahoo!.

Either way ... making SPAMbutts work harder is fine with me ... it will make it harder to get through, which will increase workload, which should kill off alot of the people who currently SPAM. If AOL, MSN and Yahoo! all supported similar methods I think a large portion of the SPAMming population would die off shortly thereafter.

Re:Arms Race

[Camel Pilot]

Actually they do have your data. If you preview any e-mail they typically have something like

<img src=/spamcity/tracker.pl?id=177729299>

Where 177729299 is your personal id number.

No they have the feedback and they know what works and what does not.

Re:Arms Race

[beanyk]

So make sure you have image-loading switched off by default.

Re:Arms Race

[WolfWithoutAClause]

You can turn that off though; and I recommend you do that.

Re:Arms Race

[Elminst]

Yet another reason to turn off the stupid preview pane(in the ass).

Re:Arms Race

[ichimunki]

Nonsense. It's impossible. First of all, they don't have access to much of the mail I want to let through-- although my mailing list traffic certainly qualifies, so let's assume that's the only mail I get and that they know I am receiving it.

There will still need to be header information and actual spam content in the spams themselves for those mails simply to not be repeats or dada-esque cutups of posts to the mailing list. That is, there must be content unique to the spam that no normal sender on the list will include.

Because of this, and the fact that so-called Bayesian spam filtering works by scoring all the words in an email and then evaluating the email based only on the extremes, there is little likelihood-- since the spam must still contain spam words to have any point at all-- of those words not being on the extreme word list. After all, if the same words are appearing in both spam and not-spam mails, they will be given a spam-probability that is not extreme. So all those words in common will be ignored and only the spam words will be looked at-- and the spam will still be filtered.

Re:Arms Race

[gorilla]

Which assumes that you have HTML enabled and images enabled in your email. Obvious answer - don't.

Re:Arms Race

[LostCluster]

That only tells them that you read their spam. In order to know what's gonna survive your filter, they'll need samples of the e-mail that you wanted to get... which is e-mail that they didn't send you and can't put a tracking bug in.

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another cool feature of mozilla mail/news is the ability to turn off remote image loading.

Re:Arms Race

[Webmonger]

Actually, all they know is that all the mail they sent to you is now considered "spammy". Either it was detected as "spammy", or it was undetected and you manually marked it.

So web bugs are irrelevent. All they know is they can't send the same kind of thing twice.

They still don't know what your criteria are for non-spammy email. And they don't know your complete criteria for spammy email, either.

So they have no way to determine a pattern that evades the filter.

Re:Arms Race

[Webmonger]

Scary thought: what if Microsoft started putting web bugs in Hotmail messages?

Re:Arms Race

[Webmonger]

Only true to an extent. If they know I subscribe to BUGTRAQ, they might tailor their spam to look like BUGTRAQ messages.

But if I'm not a BUGTRAQ subscriber, BUGTRAQ terms like "exploit", "buffer overflow", "shellcode", etc are probably marked as spammy in my filter. The same applies to mailing lists on cooking, grabage disposal and the like. Pretty well every topic has its jargon.

And even so, there's no reason I need to filter my BUGTRAQ messages through a spam filter. I know they're clean, so I can catch them before they get checked for spamminess. So I have no need to train my filters to mark them good.

I know you're saying that public archives are a way of determining non-commercial speech, but my point is that most public archives have specialized jargon, so they don't look like email from my friends.

Re:Arms Race

[Spock the Vulcan]

Use Gotmail, which downloads your hotmail messages to an mbox-style file. Or use hotwayd which appears like a POP3 server running on localhost, and uses WebDAV to get messages from hotmail (like Outlook Express). Either way, no web-bugs will get activated.

The added advantage is that you can pipe these through procmail/spamassassin just like ordinary incoming mail, and not have to manually delete all that spam.

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

Only is you're whacked in the head enough to use a HTML viewer for your email.

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

The spammers usually have a hard time spelling, much less would they know what Bayesian analysis is.

Death to the spammers!

Re:Arms Race

[Webmonger]

I mean OUTGOING Hotmail messages. They already put ads at the bottom of outgoing messages-- I bet they'd consider putting web bugs in too.

I don't use Hotmail, but I get messages from friends who do, and if they had web bugs, Microsoft could deduce part of my non-spam criteria.

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

I can argument against this.

I have a phd in Mathematics and am employed by one of the largest spamming companies in the world.

As we speak, my team - which consists of highly qualified math and cs people - is developing algorithms to nullify the effect of Bayesian filters.

I won't go into details but I can tell you we already have a working method.

Oh, how I love my work.

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

hotmail account, any1?

Re:Arms Race

[Lionel Hutts]

That's an arms race the spammers can't win. Sending spam is an ultra-low-margin business: with response rates of a fraction of a basis point, and probably only a fraction of them actually spending any money, the cost and effort per message sent must be very, very, very low for the spammers to make any money at all. Most spam recipients would gladly put in, say, $20 worth of effort to spamproof their addresses; there is no way even a spammer with huge scale could invest even $5 worth of effort for one more address. We will all have different Bayesian rules, remember. Combine that with the fact that I have perfect information about what spam and nonspam I get, and the sender has little or no information about what gets through, and it's clear that even hours of effort by senders wouldn't do much.

And, even if they could afford to keep it up for a while, my spam filter will get better faster than their spam. This is the "Ambassador's criterion" from SDI (briefly: Star Wars won't lead to an arms race if it gets to the point where shooting down an the marginal missile is cheaper than building the marginal missile).

I think we may just win the Spam Wars yet.

Re:Arms Race

[Software]

Why is this so scary? Let me put your question another way:

What if Microsoft knew when you were reading email that's stored on their servers?

Answer: They already know! You opened the message! They don't need webbugs, they have their server logs. If you don't want Microsoft to know what emails you're reading and when, you shouldn't store your email on their servers.

Re:Arms Race

[Lionel Hutts]

I don't get it. Microsoft already knows the message was sent to you by a real, live person actually using the Hotmail web site (unless spammers will go through the trouble of automating that). I mean, I get spam with Hotmail return addresses, but they must all be forged, right? I'd say genuine Hotmail mail is pretty strongly presumptively non-spam and going to be read.

With web bugs, MS could figure out the IP addresses of people to whom messages are forwarded, but that's about it. If they wanted to build a database of people getting messages from Hotmail users, they don't need web bugs.

All hotmail users' outboxes are belong to them already.

Re:Arms Race

[dolmen.fr]

This is why I'm still using a separate e-mail program instead of Mozilla.

In my firewall software I autorised Outlook Express only on ports 110 and 25 to a restricted set of hosts (my ISP accounts).
This way, I don't care if it is image or anything else.

Real picture from non-mass e-mail (which is usually spam or commercial (so non trustable)) are usually attached instead of linked.
And I also don't like Javascript code in e-mail (linked or not).

Re:Arms Race

[Graspee_Leemoor]

" Yet another cool feature of mozilla mail/news is the ability to turn off remote image loading."

Not to be offensive, but rather to be informative- Evolution has this too.

Evolution has many sucky features too, but it at least has this.

(It's my day for slagging off software, it seems...)

graspee

Re:Arms Race

[Photon Ghoul]

And there are options to restrict images in mail and Javascript in mail under Mozilla. What's your point? :)

Re:Arms Race

[ebyrob]

Actually, more likely they'll create spams that cannot be tokenized and are hence passed through the filter unscathed...

In fact, that's already starting to look like an interesting challenge. Hackers do love a challenge.

Bayesian filter: "Duh, gee never seen *that* 20k token before." It might seem like a simple solution in some instances: "Oh, I'll just disallow any token over 100 bytes long..." But in a net prolific with binary objects that a mail program wouldn't normally need to parse, it's only a matter of time before spammers start embedding their messages in messages in copies of "normal mail". Worse yet, they may embed their messages the normal emails themselves!

Perhaps I should be patenting this idea instead of posting it?

Re:Arms Race

[sakeneko]

Actually they do have your data. If you preview any e-mail they typically have something like

<img src=/spamcity/tracker.pl?id=177729299>

Where 177729299 is your personal id number.

This won't give spammers what they'd need to make a Bayesian filter work to get past other Bayesian filters, though. Some of the most important information a good Bayesian filter gets is not from your spam, but from your legitimate email. A good Bayesian filter notes who you routinely correspond with and what you talk about, and uses that information to prevent false positives. That means that it can go aggressively after stuff that looks like spam and not worry too much about catching legitimate email.

Still, tracking codes and other such stuff is why users should:

1. Get an email program that doesn't open links or display images automatically.
2. Install a good software firewall, like ZoneAlarm or Kerio , and configure it to block this cr*p.
3. Install Proxomitron to filter out what gets past the firewall.

Computer security and privacy can be enhanced considerably by taking a number of relatively simple measures.

Re:Arms Race

[sethdelackner]

So, how's it feel doing something that all of your peers consider reprehensible (annoying) and immoral (theft of bandwidth from open relays, fake headers, the list goes on)?

Re:Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

Just lovely..

Re:Arms Race

[MonkeyBoy]

Your #1 is good, but I prefer an email program that doesn't interpret ANY HTML automatically.

I realize this means I'm a backwards crotchety old fart, but email is text, dammit. You don't need funny fonts, you don't need any extraneous crap to get your point across. Period.

My primary complaint against Outlook is that there's no way to disable the HTML rendering engine. Other than that, and the myriad of security holes present in all it's components, it's really not that bad of an email program.

But I'll keep using the same email program I've been using for 10 years now, at least until it breaks completely...

Re:Arms Race

[sakeneko]

Your #1 is good, but I prefer an email program that doesn't interpret ANY HTML automatically.

I realize this means I'm a backwards crotchety old fart, but email is text, dammit.

Yep, you are indeed a backwards crotchety old fart. Since I use elm on a Unix shell myself,I guess I qualify too. ;>

From a security standpoint, though, that isn't necessary. Any email program that doesn't interpret active scripts, IFRAME tags, or retrieve images or other media objects is pretty safe. HTML alone is no more capable of carrying a virus or trojan than text is.

I admit, though, that in email (or on Usenet) it is annoying.

My primary complaint against Outlook is that there's no way to disable the HTML rendering engine.

I understand that users of Windows XP who have applied Service Pack #1 now have the option of configuring their Outlook to read email only as text. I haven't tested this out myself, though. I don't do XP or Outlook -- not voluntarily, anyway. :)

A little misleading

[TobyWong]

The news article makes it sound like this feature is up and running, in reality it is partially phased in - alpha stage stuff.

It will be great when it's more complete but there is a lot of work to do yet.

Re:A little misleading

[Jucius Maximus]

"The news article makes it sound like this feature is up and running, in reality it is partially phased in - alpha stage stuff."

I wouldn't expect it to be in the next milestone release (1.2) as well, which btw should be out any day now.

Re:A little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great! They haven't quite caught up to Apple's Mail app yet but at least they are trying.

Re:A little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

What's even greater is Apple's Mail app though.

Re:A little misleading

[DeadSea]

It is up and running, it just may have a few bugs.

I just downloaded the latest nightly build and enabled the features for my mail. So far I have seen that the icons are kind of funky, the dialog box is way oversized, there doesn't appear to be a good way of marking multiple messages as spam or not spam.

On the other hand, it does seem to be doing a good job of filtering my messages. If you were one of the folks that complained about mozilla until mozilla 1.1 or 1.2, then I wouldn't go near it with a ten foot pole. If you are one of the folks, like me, who used mozilla since milestone 11 when it crashed every hour and couldn't render a heck of a lot of pages, you'll probably want to try it. Especially, if you use mozilla for mail anyway.

Re:A little misleading

[Saint Aardvark]

Still in alpha, true. I've d/l the newest build and am testing this. Still in the process of training for spam, but I'm really excited about this.

As I've mentioned before, this'll be a boon both for poor helpdesk slobs like me and end users: I'll be able to say, "Here, download this" and have it work for them (a bit of effort to train, true, but a simple process). It'll let them get rid of (or at least manage) spam, and keep me from having to come up w/answers to questions like "But why can't you just STOP it?"

Anyhow, just my $0.02...and congrats to Moz developers. You are all, collectively, My Man.

Re:A little misleading

[gunnk]

there doesn't appear to be a good way of marking multiple messages as spam or not spam
Just select all the messages you wish to mark, then choose

Tools | Mark Selected Messages as Junk or
Tools | Mark Selected Messages as Not Junk

At least, that's how the OS X build handles it.

Re:A little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill?

Re:A little misleading

[binarybum]

But if you were like "US" you'd understand that in the fast-paced software world an old browser that has a history of relative stability means nothing right now (as in the present) in the light of a browser that evolved from a dingy second class unstable hack to a high performance stable one that is making efforts to please users by blocking unwanted ads and now spam too rather than Promoting it.

It's software, not a horse. Ol' Bessie done me well means nothing here.

Re:A little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

I was able to mark multiple messages as spam. I first got rid of the view message frame, then selected multiple messages with shift-click or shift-up/down key. Tools->Mark Selected As Junk/Not Junk.

To set status of a single message, click the junk icon on the right. ? icon is unset, a dot is not junk, and a letter in trash can is junk.

Hope this helps

Re:A little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

> Or if you're like me, who uses a very stable and fast browser that has rendered pages properly for several years (IE), you won't care about Mozilla.

Especially if you like letting cookies everywhere, if you like you status bar lying to you, if you like having tons of pop under windows, if you like animated images and if you like having to open a new window for every page you look at.

In that case, yes, IE is the best choice.

Re:A little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

IE still outperforms Mozilla by a long shot. And it still renders pages better. This is a matter of hanging onto a legacy program. It's still leaps and bounds ahead of Mozilla.

You can go on defending your lizard though, since we know that it's necessary to make yourself feel good about your idiotic decision.

Re:didn't k5 already run a story on this?

[Junks Jerzey]

Here [kuro5hin.org]. Yeah, it's basically the same thing.

Yes, and your point is? Hint: Slashdot gets most of it's stories from elsewhere.

"Now" is a little exagerated

[millette]

The articles mentions the bayesian filter being added to 1.3, and it's not completely enabled by default. Still, this is going to give the mozilla mail component a nice advantage, or some might say its slowly catching up :)

Re:didn't k5 already run a story on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell? That's a totally unrelated story! Has nothing to do with computers either.

Great!

[Shippy]

This is really a great thing. I've been wanting something like this for a long time. Unfortunately, it looks like there's still so much to do that it'll be a few versions before it's super stable. However, I know when it's finished, it'll work great just like the rest of Mozilla. I'm really excited for it to be merged in and released for testing.

Re:didn't k5 already run a story on this?

[silicon_synapse]

Nobody reads k5. It's more sensationalist than slashdot

Great gob Mozilla, but...

[GreyWolf3000]

Mozilla is continuing to shape up to be a great platform, but it's size is getting bigger and bigger. A lot of people get worried about this, or frustrated. A lot of posters will complain about the bloat.

Compile Mozilla from scratch, and you'll see that you can custom tailor the build and cut out a lot of cruft. Of course, if you just want the browser, go for Phoenix, but really compiling on your own puts you in the drivers seat and optimize it to your own needs.

The problem here is that binary distributions package it all together, so the result is the full-fledged Mozilla. Before you Gentoo zealots get out here and plug your so-loved-distro, remember that even you don't have as much control as you could.

Basically, my point is that all these features are a Good Thing, and that complaining about the bloat is silly, since it can be custom tailored to fit your needs.

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla is continuing to shape up to be a great platform, but it's size is getting bigger and bigger. A lot of people get worried about this, or frustrated. A lot of posters will complain about the bloat.

People said the same thing about emacs.

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

it's size is getting bigger and bigger.

Compile Mozilla from scratch, and you'll see that you can custom tailor the build and cut out a lot of cruft.mpile Mozilla from scratch, and you'll see that you can custom tailor the build and cut out a lot of cruft.

The source package is far larger than the binaries! Then there's the wait in compiling the damn thing. No (L)User is going to do that. Maybe us geeks (and I do use the source, Luke), but certainly not a "normal" user.

The problem here is that binary distributions package it all together

So download the Net installer and choose only what you want?

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[RAMMS EIN]

I partially agree with you. Compiling does allow you to get a slimmer lizard. However, compiling it from scratch is a real pain, and takes a long time and a lot of disk space. My point is that it's probably not worth the effort for most people. Why waste time and disk space on building a slimmed-down Mozilla if you can download a more functional precompiled version? This is why I love modularity so much; every module can be offered precompiled, and nobody needs to waste disk space.

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[GreyWolf3000]

You're right, but should that mean that mozilla should not build all these features, knowing each and every one will get added to the end package most users see?

I personally compile from scratch ;), my rant is that distributions should try and make a leaner, more expandable way of installing Mozilla. It's one of the first impressions a new convert gets.

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[ichimunki]

Before you Gentoo zealots get out here and plug your so-loved-distro, remember that even you don't have as much control as you could.

That's the dumbest comment I've seen today. It's Free Software. I have all the control I need because I have the source code available-- doesn't matter if I like Gentoo (which I do) or any other GNU/Linux distro or even Mac OS X. As to Gentoo, I'm pretty I can set an environment variable or tweak /etc/make.conf and get exactly the Mozilla I'm looking for-- in fact, I have to do this already as Mozilla + gtk2 doesn't do cut & paste right yet, so for that one application I have to do export USE="-gtk2".

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[luzrek]

go for Pheonix

Pheonix being "mozilla-lite." Personally I think it should be mo-thra.

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[Malc]

It's just too bad that it's not truly modular. This is my biggest gripe with Moz. I don't know why they couldn't have started off with separate binaries for each component from the start. Now a crash in the browser brings down my mail, chat and page composer.

Re:Great gob Mozilla, but...

[GreyWolf3000]

I'm sure you've seen worse, but isn't it oh so fun to flame?

I made the Gentoo comment because if I didn't, I would get a few replies that say "if you need to customize the installation from source, check out gentoo [gentoo.org]." Gentoo is great, it's developers are great, and most of it's users are fine. There are just a few zealots that piss the hell outta me going around the web and making plugs for Gentoo. I wonder how a Gentoo zealot would like every plug-post to be followed with a "or if you want more control, try LFS [linuxfromscratch.org]. I've been using it for years, and you can tailor every component to your needs. Hell, you don't even need glibc." It is a FACT that you get more control with LFS, but I am content that most people don't use it. Rather, I don't care.

Besides, I'll take ./configure and editing host.def or mozilla's equivalent over emerge any day :P

P.S. I'm sorry for going on the Gentoo rant. My 'dumb' comment was a botched attempt to prevent Gentoo-zealot-plugs. It ended up that I got mad, decent Gentoo users pissed of at me.

They're just

[wiredog]

Bayesian at the moon with this filter. The spammers will figure a way around it. Probably involving legislation,

Re:They're just

[Xformer]

The Anti-Anti-Spam Act?

Filtering

[Transient0]

Bayesian technique is very good for the sort of abstract classification task that spam represents. It would be an interesting hack to try and train a network to categorize based solely on message body... i do however hope that their team has opted for practicality over just hack value and the network will also use such extremely relevant data as header information and comparing address versus address book(an e-mail from someone not in your address book is not necesarrily spam... but it is more likely to be).

Re:Filtering

[Gabe Garza]

Actually, using only the body isn't just a hack, it's a relatively new technique invented by Paul Graham that seems to produce excellent results. It makes a lot of sense: Spam is Spam because the body contains commercial or otherwise unwanted material--it's only natural that the most direct and accurate Spam filters are going to analyze the body. Bayesian classification like this is computationally tractable and appears to work. You can read more about it here.

Re:Filtering

[otisg]

Good, I'll finally be able to filter out my mom's daily messages effectively!

Re:Filtering

[ichimunki]

Here's a sketch of how I do statistical filtering. I start with one corpus of spam and one of nonspam mail. At the moment each one has about 4000 messages in it. I scan the entire text, including headers and embedded html and javascript, of each message in each corpus. I currently consider alphanumeric characters, dashes, apostrophes, and dollar signs to be part of tokens, and everything else to be a token separator...

If you read the article at the link you provided you will find that this method would normally include evaluating the entire source of the email, and not just the body.

Re:Filtering

[jwd-oh]

It already exists in the form of Vipul's Razor.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us don't even keep an address book, then again nowdays 80% of my mail is spam. I guess that means a spam filter that compares against my address book would not only be 100% effective in eliminating spam, but would also only 20% of the mails it wipes would be false positives. Good stuff that filtering software :P

Re:Filtering

[mbbac]

Address books should be used as whitelists in my opinion.

Re:Filtering

[garymcm]

I would like to understand the choice of Bayesian more. As far as I know Bayesian is good for classifying based on *belief* and can be pretty good when only partial evidence is available to network. This is great for Marketing activities, eg sending out mass emails to a segment of a database :) . However as this is _my_ email and mission critical to me, just a simple belief that something is spam is not enough

In my experience, 99% of spam can be caught with static rules (am I in the TO or CC line gets a bit under half the spam I receive). Taxonomical analysis of the subject and body can get the rest.

Bayesian seems like overkill, or maybe even a bad fit. Let's face it, the other well known use for Bayesian is the famous Microsoft Office Paper Clip!!! And that is about as useful as the proverbial ashtray on a motorbike!!

Gary

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a procmail filter that doesn't pass anything not sent directly To: one of my e-mail addresses. (actually, it sends it to a junk folder)

Now, maybe it's just the spam that I get, but just this simple filter blocks 99% of all the spam I get (10-20 messages a day) and has never sent a real message to the junk folder (OK, maybe once or twice in 2 years it has sent a message that someone from the office "spammed" out to multiple people; but that really was spam, it just happened to be spam I wanted to read).

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't invent it, you moron, he popularized it.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, 99% of spam can be caught with static rules

then keep using them. they don't work for the rest of us, though.

(am I in the TO or CC line gets a bit under half the spam I receive)

yeah, with a lot of false positives i bet. got BCC'd on a message? oops. also using whitelists? fine, until your correspondents get new email addresses.

Taxonomical analysis of the subject and body can get the rest.

that's basically what graham's version of naive bayes does, except it does the work of building the taxonomy for you.

Re:Filtering

[swdunlop]

1) How much time do you spend training your paperclip in Office?

How much time are you going to spend on training your spam filter? If you are unwilling to invest a little time and effort in developing a solid set of values that fit your personal pattern of behavior, then Bayesian filters are indeed a poor match for you.

2) What harm is a false positive?

If you are automatically deleting anything that is marked as a positive for spam, then you are playing roulette with your email. I would generally recommend diverting email classified as spam by your filter to a folder, especially one that is relatively new and has had very little experience with your patterns of use. Set an expiry on your spam folder, and check it from time to time to see if something fell through the cracks. Mozilla has a handy feature that allows you to simply conceal spam from view, which works adequately, although I dislike the potential performance hit in a large folder.

Considering how important your email is to you, you should certainly consider applying a little diligence to how you manage it.

Re:Filtering

[guybarr]

Let's face it, the other well known use for Bayesian is the famous Microsoft Office Paper Clip!!!

1) office paper clip.
The Office assistents of all shape, sizes and levels of irritation were a good idea at the time. The fact is MS did not understand just how hard educating people (especially people with, ehmm, suboptimal approach to machines) with current AI methods is. They nevertheless did try to do something instead of whining, which is a positive, experimental approach I like very much. The fact they failed does not mean the attempt was not worthwhile.

2) office assistants Vs spam-filtering.
It may be, and IMHO very likely, that spam filtering is a much easier problem to solve than educating people. In fact, since spam is the output of a very limited statistical source (compared with the human brain ...) and needs to be, by its definition, highly repetitive, a multi-user statistical approach is, like all sparks of genius after-the-fact, the obvious solution.

So you can use static rules if you wish, but ignoring the shared data from a multiple of users, seems like refusing to take the better solution.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

Think it might be a good idea to define spam properly before setting up filters for it.

By the definition "unwanted material" any introductory e-mail is spam, even if it isn't commercial. It is therefore possible to classify ANY e-mail sent by a non-acquaintance as spam.

Now, how do you propose any business get done at all if businesses aren't even allowed to introduce themselves to one another using e-mail? Here's a hint: it won't.

When "hello, my name is" becomes spam, the economy stops. Period.

Re:Filtering

[Shamashmuddamiq]

I don't believe it was "invented" by Paul Graham. Thoughts of separating spam from real email based on the statistical properties of its content is something that has come to my mind, as well as the minds of many people over the last few years. Just because Paul's page was the first one that you've seen explain it in detail doesn't mean he invented it.

BTW, there are ways of getting around Bayesian filtering. For instance, if you take random words from a large dictionary of long, normal conversational but not-often-used-in-spam words and splatter them throughout your spam, its easy to convince the bayesian filter that it's not spam. Not only will this decrease your false negatives, it has the capability of increasing your false positives. This is because your new spam will be training your bayesian filter, and putting lots of non-spam-like words into its vocabulary. If the spammers keep up with their dictionaries as well as the filters keep up with theirs (and I must assume this will happen), we've still got a big problem on our hands.

Don't get me wrong. I have bogofilter installed on my mail server at home, and it works great for now. But don't expect it to work forever.

Re:Filtering

[garymcm]

When you say "it does the work" of building the taxonomy, what do you mean? The model must be trained and that requires cases does it not? I think the "work" will be the user flagging what is spam (and what is not is also important).

There are not a lot of false positives, but there are some.

There is a list of addresses that always get through. This is my basically my address book and manual additions, like mailing lists. If I get mail from one of these it always gets through whether it fails all other rules, BCC'ed etc.

After that I have a series of rules. I have been running my little server app for about 15 months and below I posted the recent stats. I don't count false negatives (spam that gets through) but doubt I have seen more than 20 messages in this time.

90 Invalid or unknown FROM domain
697 Body contains spam word(s).
263 Subject contains spam word(s).
162 From address ends in numbers
434 Address is malformed in some way
108 Subject ends in numbers
443 No recipients found.
7 Blocked sender found.
1798 No Valid Address Found.
13 From address is blank.
4015 Total

I always see a summary of what is nuked and keep a URL to the message so I can get it if necessary. Takes a few seconds to review this. Not perfect but my problem is solved to my satisifaction.

I don't think Bayesian is great at taxonomy either. Only asking for many node values to infer what is basically a binary result (spam or not). I think they are making it complicated if the attempt is to score the message for belief that it may be spam. To what end?

Re:Filtering

[garymcm]

1. Nonsense. My personal behavior has nothing to do with the spam I receive. I am pleased about this, because the reverse is the goal of every spammer today. Spam is spam. It's not a case of "I'll know it when I see it". By the way, this model, if it is such an personalized description of your anti-taste, would be helpful to marketers long term I think, don't you?

2. I never delete the message completely. I prefer to keep a copy and email myself a a quick list of hits to review to make sure I got spam only, with URLs to each message.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll second that.

Any mail from an address not in the address book should prompt the user, giving the sender's address and the subject line, to to choose whether to reject the message (and optionally, send a rejection notice and/or add the sender or the sender's domain to a blacklist) or accept the message (and optionally, add the sender to the address book).

I don't particularly like blacklists, esp. since spammers don't keep using the same address, but some people might want that feature.

Re:Filtering

[G-funk]

If you need to go in by hand and check all your spam, it defeats the purpose of filtering in the first place.

Re:Filtering

[bugnuts]

That will completely hose you if you subscribe to a mailing list without a way to bypass it. I do some similar checking and have to put many address in specifically.

One huge method of stopping spam is blocking anything west of hawaii. Cut china, tw, jp, and especially kr, and you lose a TON of spam. You have to typically use the IP blocks, though... they've caught on. Sayanara [211.*] and [210.*], I don't have any friends that write me from there anyway.

Re:Filtering

[Lars Arvestad]

If you need to go in by hand and check all your spam, it defeats the purpose of filtering in the first place.

No, it doesn't, at least not to me. I am a Xemacs/Gnus user and have some trivial (non-Bayesian) filters that puts emails likely to be spam in a special folder. The accuracy is around 99%. Whenever I read my regular email, I can simply walk through them one by one without stumbling over spam every second message. Once a day, I take a look in the spam folder to see if someone I know but didn't happen to have in my address book sent me an email without a Subject line (yup, that's the most common problem).

This is way less intrusive than have my good emails mixed in with tons of spam!

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

playing roulette with your email

I put 10 red chips on Inbox, then see which folder the message with the white ball lands in? :-D

Mozilla mail / browser

[FrostedWheat]

I wonder if a similar technique could be used in the browser. Automatically block images or popups based on previous ones you have blocked.

Now that would be very nifty!

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[SethJohnson]

The site-specific white list feature of Mozilla's pop-up blocking seems to work fine enough. The number of sites where you actually want popups from is far less than those offering popups. So manually adding these exceptions to the white list is not such an annoying task. I think bayesian filtering would be overkill in this case.

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[pVoid]

It would be much harder because an image doesn't have 'content'. At least text content.

URLs are generally cryptic numbers, so that even humans can't decipher what they are.

Although there are certain apps out there (such as Norton PErsonal FW) that let you block a certain add from ever popping up again. Which I find very cool.

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[Penguinoflight]

Banner-filter by phroggy proggy.org will block banners very well, but it only works inside a proxy now. Mozilla had a chance to implement a banner filtering system, but they opted out. Pretty sad actually

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is such a feature, just download BannerBlind, an addon avaliable from the mozdev site and your up and running, it blocks images of certain sizes that (i think) come from a remote site...

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[po_boy]

You know, this came to my head last night as I was falling asleep. I pictured it as a learning filtering system just like bogofilter or any of the other statistical mail filtering deals. It could work on embedded images and look at their URL, size, and possibly content to decide if you wanted to view it or not. When you saw a banner ad or something that you didn't want in your browser, right click on it and add it to the spams list. Your browser learns a little more and starts filtering out similar images.

I initially thought about it based on a news story about the supreme court and library filtering systems. One problem with the filtering in libraries is that you have to depend on some company to make a good block list. They get a huge government grant and produce a crappy filter.

Seems like we could make a rather intelligent filtering proxy or browser or something to remove adult content from library kiosk machines. That way the libraries wouldn't be dependant on some poor filtering list, the kind that elicits cries of censorship. Eventually, a smart enough filter could be built to keep out objectionable material.

The only thing I couldn't figure out was how to train the statistical filter well.

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[almightyjustin]

There's a site-specific whitelist feature? Where? That sounds much easier than repeatedly changing the pref whenever I want to turn on popups...

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[NighthawkFoo]

The only thing I couldn't figure out was how to train the statistical filter well.


Simple...pay someone to sit there and sift through adult sites.

:-)

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[Sylver Dragon]

There's a site-specific whitelist feature? Where? That sounds much easier than repeatedly changing the pref whenever I want to turn on popups...

I have to ask. When would you ever want pop-ups enabled?
I've been running without pop-ups since I discovered Mozilla, both at home and work, and not once have I had a need to have pop-ups turned on. Its made my whole internet experience much better.
I also make use of my HOSTS file to kill most banners on sites I visit. Just find the URL for where the banner image is loaded from, create an entry that points that URL to 127.0.0.1, and that banner becomes defunct. Mind you, you might need to clear your disk cache out, so it doesn't get loaded locally; but, I do that on a regular basis anyhow.

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[almightyjustin]

Well, often sites offering...completely legal software for download will use popups for their download windows...;)

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[hoytt]

I'd love such a function in Mozillaor Chimera because my bank uses javascript in their online banking and I need to have the option of 'allow script to open new window' on otherwise it won't work. If I could make a list and put only my bank on it as an exception then I could turn on the pop-up blocker again.

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[Sylver Dragon]

Well, often sites offering...completely legal software for download will use popups for their download windows...;)

While I have seen this sort of thing, usually on places such as download.com.com, they are also usually kind enough to provide a link to click on, if for some reason the pop-up fails to start the downloand. Ok, so it requires one more click, but for not having to click 50 billion or so times to close pop-ups, I figure its a good trade off.
Again, not seen much use for pop-ups, especially the kind that happen when first loading or unloading a page.

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[SpaceLifeForm]

Are you implying that doing a right-click on a banner ad and selecting 'Block Images from this Server' does not work?

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[ensignyu]

I haven't really tried it, but check out the banner-ad blocking project on MozDev. And banner filtering systems are bad for sites that rely on income from advertising. Plus, it's pretty easy to ignore banner ads (as opposed to popups, which are quite in-your-face; for these, you have a good reason to block them)

Re:Mozilla mail / browser

[Penguinoflight]

No, but there's tuns of banner servers out there, doubleclick.net has about 20 subdomains, and it would get frustrating for me to "block from this server" every time I see an ad, and still get tuns.

zilla

[sstory]

I just switched to Mozilla. Happy to be free of Microsoft for email. It's skinnable, and there are some cool skins--like one which sort of emulates Evolution. I noticed an annoying 'feature' though, which is still there from Netscrap days--if you send an email without a subject, a dialog pops up and goes blah blah blah. I asked the Mozilla newsgroup if there was a way around this, but all I got was the sort of adolescent yammerings that keep me out of unmoderated newsgroups. Nice to see it has a spamfilter now. The only major improvement remaining is to add a spell-check (the Netscrap one was licensed from a 3rd party, and can't be freely distributed).

Re:zilla

[Neon Spiral Injector]

It is so annoying to get an e-mail without a subject. My spam filters actually bump you a little bit closer to being considered spam if there is no subject. I consider it to be a required header.

For one I sort my mail by thread, while Mozilla will use reference headers to thread messages, the fall back is the subject. Without a subject your message would be tossed in the thread with the other loosers who also forgot their subject.

The easy way to keep that dialog box from popping up when you send a mail is to...put a subject on the message.

If you want a spell checker go to the Netscape FTP server find the XPI file for the spell checker and install it.

Re:zilla

[mstyne]

How the frak is this Informative? Moderators, have you been taking stupid pills again?

It's skinnable, and there are some cool skins--like one which sort of emulates Evolution.

I'm sure the Mozilla dev team will be happy to know the first reason you listed for switching was because it was skinnable. Cripes.

Re:zilla

[Hard_Code]

"was because it was skinnable."

And skinnable to look like a different mail client at that :)

Re:zilla

[mstyne]

And yet it continues to be modded up! : )

Re:zilla

[bpfinn]

1. Check out the Mozilla source code
2. Change the subject feature to your liking and recompile
3. Profit!

Re:zilla

[Dog and Pony]

if you send an email without a subject, a dialog pops up and goes blah blah blah

There is nothing more annoying than getting mails without a subject line. It is even more annoying trying to spot that mail again in the list, when you have received several of them.

Now if they could actually forbid sending mails without a subject line, I'll start forcing Mozilla down all my friends throats... :)

Re:zilla

[ChaosDiscord]

I noticed an annoying 'feature' though, which is still there from Netscrap days--if you send an email without a subject, a dialog pops up and goes blah blah blah.

The "blah blah blah" is roughly, "You have not specified a subject. Would you like to enter one now?" Perhaps you're right, it should be changed. Instead, it should say, "You're about to send an email message without a subject. That's an amazingly rude thing to do and likely to irritate the recipient as it makes it harder for them to pioritize their incoming mail and harder to distinguish from spam. Because this is such a terrible idea, you should enter a subject line below. If you fail to enter a subject, the default entry of 'I'm a idiot, please delete this message without reading it' will be used."

Re:zilla

[DrXym]

The around the issue is to hack the chrome so it doesn't do it. The reason it does do it has to do with good usenet practice - there is a list (whose name escapes me) of stuff that all good email / news software is supposed to enforce and not allowing blank headers is one of them.

Re:zilla

[Malc]

The most important part of an email is the subject line. Think about it.

When you're done, check out http://spellchecker.mozdev.org/. It's not as active as it could be, and one day it might even be part of the main source tree. Then we might get spellchecking for input forms on web pages.

Re:zilla

[kamapuaa]

The "blah blah blah" is roughly, "You have not specified a subject. Would you like to enter one now?" Perhaps you're right, it should be changed. Instead, it should say, "You're about to send an email message without a subject. That's an amazingly rude thing to do and likely to irritate the recipient as it makes it harder for them to pioritize their incoming mail and harder to distinguish from spam. Because this is such a terrible idea, you should enter a subject line below. If you fail to enter a subject, the default entry of 'I'm a idiot, please delete this message without reading it' will be used."

Wow, I hope my friends aren't that hostile. For professional mails a subject is needed. But when sending a letter to friends, who cares?

Re:zilla

[Mr Guy]

Well, I would assume they do. Maybe you like seeing: Dad..... Dad.....Re: Dad.....FWD:RE: Mom..... Mom.....Re:FWD: Dad.....Re: Dad..... Dad..... Always possible.

Re:zilla

[cduffy]

I care. I'm busy, and if one of my friends needs a ride tonight I'll read it. If that same friend is just wondering how I'm doing, I won't -- unless I'm not at all busy.

Further, some of us actually have multiple threads of conversation going with our friends, or archive our messages and occasionally go back through them. I may be simultaniously talking with someone about (say) some PHP problems they're having and discussing motorcycle riding. If I want to go back and reread what exactly the problem he was having with PHP is, I don't want to have to sort through the messages where he's trying to convince me I should be riding a crotch rocket instead of a cruiser.

My friends understand this, and are polite enough to use the subject header in their emails. If they don't do that once, I'll ask politely that they start. If they don't do it again, I may well be rightfully a bit annoyed.

Re:zilla

[jsavage47hotmail.com]

What about aspell? Since mozilla is open source couldn't it just use spell checking from other OSS projects?

Re:zilla

[sstory]

It's exactly the same sort of blather I got on the newsgroup. Instead of helping with a technical problem, the posters assumed they understood what I was trying to do, and condemned it. I have very good reasons for not including a subject line on certain emails, which no one asked for, and which I don't need to submit to their approval. People often criticize without knowing all the relevant information.

Re:zilla

[Anonymous Coward]

If you truly get that irritated by email messages with no subject line, then I would say that SPAM is probably on the lower end of things that you should be concerned about.

They make drugs to take care of these kinds of mental disorders, you know.

Re:zilla

[ChaosDiscord]

Wow, I hope my friends aren't that hostile. For professional mails a subject is needed. But when sending a letter to friends, who cares?

Sorry, it's a pet peave. It's particularly frustrating that I'd had a few people I interact with professionally fail to use subject lines.

It does still matter for a message to friends however. Something short like "Want to get together to Thanksgiving?" allows me to ignore it for a little bit if we're far away from Thanksgiving, and increases its priority if we're near to Thanksgiving. "Check out this funny joke." gets ignored until I'm in the mood, but "Family emergency" gets opened immediately.

People who only get a handful of messages a day probably don't appeciate how important this is for people who receive two hundred messages per day (between work email, personal email, and various technical mailing lists). When you're getting that sort of email, you either become very aggressive about how you handle it, or your time disappears.

Re:zilla

[Malc]

There used to be issues with Aspell. I can't remember what exactly, but they could have been license, portability (no Mac support?) and the features of C++ used. The project went ahead and integrated Open Office's spell checker, although it might now be possible to use aspell. I'm just thankfull that they finally moved on the project as it is the only thing that's holding me back from ditching NS4.7x (I use it for mail only).

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56301

Re:zilla

[Rev. Rudolf]

> It is so annoying to get an e-mail without a subject. My spam filters actually bump you a little bit closer to being considered spam if there is no subject. I consider it to be a required header.

But if you're mailing an automaton which only reads the body of your message and couldn't care a jot about the subject line - for example, a spam-collecting robot - then entering a subject line is arguably unintuitive, and certainly a waste of time.

On my Moz wish list would be a tick box for "Always use this subject line if I don't enter one (and don't ask me again)".

Re:zilla

[Reckless Visionary]

I agree with you. I also frequently have reason to send email without a subject, for example, to myself so that I have a file available on my IMAP server that I can easily access from outside the office. The reason I don't need the subject is because I already know the contents of the email and it's a waste of time to write myself telling me what I'm sending myself. No one seemed to mention this but the obvious behavior to be called for here is that of Outlook Express for the Mac (I think that's where it happened to me, no promises) It will tell you that you're sending an email without a subject, but has a checkbox allowing you to disable that prompt. Is there something wrong with this type of behavior that the Mozilla developers purposely chose not to include it?

Re:zilla

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I don't want to put a subject line? Why does the software always have to treat me like an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing? I can understand having it as a default option but you should be able to turn that functionality off just like all the form submission warnings.

Re:zilla

[Anonymous Coward]

You would allow and demand that an email client annoy other users because you would prefer it if everybody who uses email would respect your personal preferences. That's unreasonable--unless you're some kind of yammering adolescent, in which case you're excused.

Some users don't want or need an overly presumptive, illinformed, inyourface, got my people skills from the Alekto manual of 101 surefire techniques for exacting divine retribution poor excuse for an Emily Post proofreading their email, thank you.

Re:zilla

[Brendan Byrd]

I hate it when somebody mass FWDs a message fifty billion times this one simple joke, with a hundred greater-than signs on it, like:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This joke is pretty funny:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The chicken crossed the road...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AND GOT HIT BY A CAR!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HA HA HA HA HA HA HA LOLOLOLOOOOOL!!!!

Re:zilla

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're getting that sort of email, you either become very aggressive about how you handle it, or your time disappears. ...or the mail disappears into dev/nul

Re:zilla

[cymen]

Yeah, because we all know mailbots will have a hissy fit on the style of the email when managing your list subscription. Seriously, I'm on tons of mailing lists and Mozilla's little subject helper is just plain annoying. I put a subject in every damn email I send except those sent to bots--does that make me some sort of freak? I don't think so. The subject thing is dumb and, at the very least, should be an option.

Re:zilla

[Phroggy]

People who only get a handful of messages a day probably don't appeciate how important this is for people who receive two hundred messages per day (between work email, personal email, and various technical mailing lists). When you're getting that sort of email, you either become very aggressive about how you handle it, or your time disappears.

Well said. Most of mine is filtered into various folders, but I can't filter everything. I glance at my mail throughout the day, and if nothing about your subject line indicates the importance of the message, I'll be pretty annoyed.

Hmm, come to think of it, I think Spamcop might flag messages with blank subject lines as possible spam. I'm usually pretty careful about checking through everything before reporting it, but I might miss yours and report it anyway.

Now all we need is

[Anonymous Coward]

FOR MSO,MSOE,AOL AND HOTMAIL TO SUPPORT THIS BEFORE THE SPAMMERS WILL GET HURT!

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Hope it doesn't have false positives

[tedgyz]

This is really great technology.

I had the benefit of working with this technology for a classification problem here at work. I was amazed at how good it worked. We were using it to replace a purely human process.

However, there is one huge problem. Incorrect classification. Blind tests against a known dataset showed 80%+ correctness. The problem is, you don't know which 20% is wrong. Thus, you still need 100% inspection to validate the results.

When applied to mail filters, I wonder how the technology avoids dumping your good mail? Like when your friend sends you a URL to good pr0n site.

Yeah, but...

[digital_milo]

This will be of no use to me until it automatically deletes any Word Doc and .exe files that my co workers try to email to me.

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

So... just classify anything with .doc or .exe attachments as junk. Won't it "learn" that those messages are bad? Or does it only look at the body text?

Sean

Re:Yeah, but...

[fletchnj]

See MIMEDefang... it'll let you do just what you want.

One question...

[Hard_Code]

I assume the filtering statistics live on the client side. What about IMAP? If I open up Mozilla on a new machine, are all my spam statistics lost (presumably rendering the junk mail filtering statistics I've accumulated useless on the new machine).

It would be neat if, with IMAP accounts, Mozilla just stored the statistics in a file on IMAP server instead of on the client.

Re:One question...

[reaper20]

It's like this with every setting, in both the browser and mail/news.

The real fix is full roaming profiles so I can have a master profile on a server with all my bookmarks, cookies, mail and spam settings, etc., but it seems like that feature is still a ways off ...

Re:One question...

[Anonymous Coward]

The training file lives in your profile. If you don't have the training file that means you've also lost all your bookmarks, preferences, customizations, etc. The real solution is to migrate your profile.

Re:One question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Use server side filtering. I use a non-Bayesian statistical filter written in AWK. It works OK for me, very little spam gets through, no good mail missed.

Statistical methods are very simple to implement to filter mail. There are bunches of implementations out there, most work great.

Re:One question...

[Jobe_br]

... unfortunately, I might add. Roaming profiles is an underappreciated feature, it appears. Its incredibly simple to setup w/ NS 4.7+Apache+mod_roaming and works like a charm. Even for my small company (2-7 employees at any given time), roaming profiles provides a lot of flexibility, especially when moving around between machines, which I, personally, often do. Its also great for recovering settings after configurations get corrupted - that's come in handy quite a few times.

Some day, I guess ..

Re:One question...

[BroadbandBradley]

someday you'll be able to backup and restore your Mozilla Profile, and when that day comes, I hope you'll remember that Mozilla has a House online at ZillaVilla.com

Re:One question...

[biostatman]

Spam Assassin in combination with procmail has worked well on the server side for me. You can tune the sensitivity to how much spam it catches, but my informal assessment is that it catches about 95% of the spam, with only 1 false positive in about 3 weeks of use (the false positive's and any other email address can be put in a whitelist of email addresses that are let through automatically). Great stuff. Saves me from having to constantly update my ~/.procmailrc for new spammers.

Re:One question...

[RoC MasterMind]

Um...just write a program to backup and restore (if needed) your profile. I did.

Re:One question...

[the_olo]

You can copy the training.dat file that lives in your Mozilla profile directory, take it with you and place it on the new machine in addition to configuring IMAP account.

The training.dat file contains all the training data so far. Mine is about 800 KB now and doesn't grow significantly anymore - its size stabilised.

MSN 8 rules, Mozilla Sucks

[weave]

I can get spam filtering as part of upgrading my free MSN account to MSN 8 for only $10/month!
</troll>

(Just trying to figure out what the MS trolls will have to say about this one, since every Mozilla article degrades to a flame fest of Microsoft greatness versus the rest of the world)

Re:MSN 8 rules, Mozilla Sucks

[Hard_Code]

"since every Mozilla article degrades to a flame fest of Microsoft greatness versus the rest of the world"

s/Microsoft/Open Source/

Re:MSN 8 rules, Mozilla Sucks

[mblase]

I can get spam filtering as part of upgrading my free MSN account to MSN 8 for only $10/month! (Just trying to figure out what the MS trolls will have to say about this one)

Besides the obvious fact that Mozilla costs $0 per month, you mean?

Re:MSN 8 rules, Mozilla Sucks

[lovebyte]

I get spam filtering for free on Yahoo!

Re:MSN 8 rules, Mozilla Sucks

[damien_kane]

"since every Mozilla article degrades to a flame fest of Microsoft greatness versus the rest of the world"

s/Microsoft/Open Source/

s/Open Source/Slashdot/
and you'll be right about 80% of the time...

Re:MSN 8 rules, Mozilla Sucks

[Malc]

$120/yr? I paid Yahoo $20 for a year. 90% of my spam has the header X-YahooFilteredBulk. My mail server ditches all that for me. I think you've been had by MSFT's marketing.

Re:MSN 8 rules, Mozilla Sucks

[emars]

To bad it sucks.

Don't tell me it doesn't.

It sucks. ...18...19...20 SUBMIT

FIRST THERE/THEIR TROLL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "their weapons". "There" and "their" are different words and are not generally interchangable. Thank you.

I'll leave the "its" troll for someone else.

Re:FIRST THERE/THEIR TROLL!!!

[alefbet]

I think you meant "their weapons". "There" and "their" are different words and are not generally interchangable. Thank you.

Actually, I think they meant to say "both sides are using them there weapons", but I think that would be more appropriately written as "both sides are using tham thar weapons."

Now, before you mod me down, please realize that there are starving people all over the world who don't have mod points, so be grateful for yours.

SpamAssassin + Mozilla = Schweet!

[Noryungi]

Well, most of my spam is already sent to /dev/null by the SpamAssassin ninja.

But, for those that make it past the email shadow warrior, I guess Bayesian filters are a double whammy they'll never survive... Mwahahahaha!

Kudos to the Mozilla programmers!

Re:SpamAssassin + Mozilla = Schweet!

[Plutor]

SpamAssassin should soon include its own Bayesian filters, and Perl support.

Re:SpamAssassin + Mozilla = Schweet!

[TheTomcat]

Don't effective Byesian filters need a good sampling of email you DON'T want, to be useful?

Spamassassin does a pretty good job, so the amount of spam that makes it to your client should be negligible (as you said, most of your spam is already filtered).

So, without a good sample of spam, that second level can't act intelligently.

Unless I'm wrong.. (-:
OR, if you could hook it up with spamassassin's rejected mail -- THIS would be useful.

S

Re:SpamAssassin + Mozilla = Schweet!

[Noryungi]

Actually, on my Linux workstation, SpamAssassin sends the spam straight to the 'trash'.

So I guess that (a) it's possible to hook them up to gether and (b) get a good sample of rejected emails... =)

Mwahahahahahaha!!

Re:SpamAssassin + Mozilla = Schweet!

[bugnuts]

What you'd do is save all the messages that got PAST the spamassassin filters, then feed those into it. Hopefully it'll start catching such spam later.

The ones I find most often get past spamassassin are one-line urls.

Where this is REALLY needed

[TerryAtWork]

is at the ISP end.

They should check every outgoing piece of mail for spam.

This, properly implemented, could completely kill the whole spam industry.

Re:Where this is REALLY needed

[lawngnome]

what needs to be done is stopping direct smtp connections from unknown hosts -

AOL does this with their smtp gateway,

when a remote server connects, it is checked for a valid domain name and static ip (thus no dial up users!)
if the server is invalid, the server accepts the mail like a normal smtp session, but does not send it...

Re:Where this is REALLY needed

[endersdad]

Yeah, just like the Post Office should check for junkmail before driving to my house!

Re:Where this is REALLY needed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just plain wrong. What guarantee would you have that your outgoing mail doesn't get discarded on account of being falsely identified as spam?

Re:Where this is REALLY needed

[Ballsy]

Does it not seem at least a little unreasonable to ask your ISP to provide you with full access to the internet and all it has to offer, with the exception of this, and this, and this, and this... ? Where do we draw the line ? "Please don't let my kids see any websites containing the word 'bleh', but let my second cousin see them when he's visiting from Chattanooga".
Mail filtering CAN be properly implemented, but the ISPs aren't the ones who should be doing it...their clientel are far too diverse, and have differing needs. Should it be an option for the customer ? Perhaps, but it could incur additional costs, which in turn, would be passed on to the consumer.

Microsoft's Patent

[woboz]

What happens when microsoft attempts to enforce this patent

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[VValdo]

They haven't enforced it against Apple Mail's junk filter, so (without reading the whole patent), I wonder if it applies.

W

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be possible to implement Bayesian spam filtering using the ideas published in 1992
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=138861 &dl=AC M&coll=portal&CFID=5684489&CFTOKEN=7527909#FullTex t
which represents prior art to this patent

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[DaveAtFraud]

This is from Paul Graham's site with regard to the Microsoft patent. Patents tend to be very narrow in scope such that, if some aspects change, the patent may no longer apply. Pick on any typical consumer product such as hair dryers, stereos, you name it. They all have patents and they're all different and they don't "infringe" on each other unless they're virtually identical.

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[aredubya74]

I rarely traffic in bumps, but mod the parent up. Really good catch on this patent.

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh hello! It's called Apple Mail, and it has had that filtering (and it's actually being USED, not in alpha). Microsoft has not sued or even said anything about it or their spam filters.

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[McFly777]

I hope somebody can find some prior art on this. I just (quickly) read the claims and body of the patent and it sounds very much like the techniques that have been described here previously.

Unfortunatly, the Patent was issued in Dec 2000; the first time I heard this idea was the Paul Graham implementation in the last few months.

So, if this is all old hat to anyone out there, please do everyone a favor and find that prior art and let everyone know, so that, in 5 years when MS trys to enforce this patent, there is a defense.

------

I accidently posted this as an AC (score:0) so I am reposting it, but in the mean time another AC post claims to have some prior art. According to that AC This article (fixed link) may be helpful, I couldn't read it myself as the Full Text requires ACM membership. Perhaps somebody with access could take a look, and review it's potential applicability as prior art. (ie. Does it explicitly mention using baysian techniques to filter spam?)

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[egghat]

Can somebody with access to the ACM library could check this and if parent is appropriate, mod him up?

That may be the prior art we're looking for.

I hate software patents and I hate MS.

Bye egghat.

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[blamanj]

Microsoft and Apple have a number of cross-license agreements, so that's not a valid test.

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[DeadSea]

Specifically in this case:

...then stored in a corresponding folder for subsequent retrieval by and display to the recipient.

So it looks as if this patent only covers server side implementations. A client side (Mozilla's) implementation retreives it and then filters and displays it.

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[lakeland]

It looks to me like this patent doesn't apply. Specifically the patent talks about support vector machines rather than bayes classification and says "determining whether each one of a pre-defined set of N features (where N is a predefined integer)". Bayesian filtering does not do this (n is variable, the number of words in the message). Of course, IANAL. And even if it doesn't apply, there is nothing to stop MS threatening people with the patent.

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[crisco]

Something called iFile has been doing something similar since 1996. Changelog and readme document this. Some thoughts from the POPFile project (my sources for those links).

Re:Microsoft's Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ifile is from 1996 while the patent has a date of 1998

http://www.nongnu.org/ifile/ and take a look at the changelog

Mod this guy up!! That's brilliant

[Mustang Matt]

So obvious yet so simple!

A better idea...

[jaredcoleman]

Since a lot of people here are saying that this type of filtering won't work, how about this:

TAX SPAMMERS!

I'm sure this idea can't be original, but think about it... if you don't want someone to do something, just charge them like crazy for it. (RIAA nodds, internet radio sobs) Hey, here's a legitimate reason to read others' email headers! But seriously, what barriers would keep something like this from working?

Re:A better idea...

[MImeKillEr]

I'd rather they do this that impose some internet sales tax, even though I rarely purchase online.

Re:A better idea...

[rizawbone]

Most high-end spammers now setup and use a blind relay which obfuscates thier originating ip. People in 'the biz' who are good enough at what they do to have friends, pool these blind relays between themselves.

Of course these relays do get shut down, but just as soon new ones pop up. Most anti-spam is originating-ip focused and haven't caught on yet.

How do i know all of this? I used to work for the enemy. Sitting in on meetings is enough to get me to me write a book.

Re:A better idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a great idea, let's streamline the puppy, all you have to do is print out a pdf state form, and a include a printed copy of the spam and spammers IP or email addy, the government immediately sends you a $10 check for EACH piece of spam (multiple identicle messages count individually) and sends the spammer a ticket for $15 for every mail recieved, if the spammer is not locatable the isp who owns the ip is liable.

Greedy states who want internet sales tax should go for this in a heartbeat ;)

you can also submit this via an online form.

Since some of us run Windows,

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I dare submit myself to the rage of the Slashdot crowd. I use Outlook and "Spamnet" is a way to stop most spam in Windows. Based on the Razor project (distributed spam detection), it is a great solution for whomever cannot or does not want to move to Mozilla. Granted, it is beta quality, but the Mozilla feature is still in the alpha stage.

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[rpillala]

Um. You can run Mozilla under Windows. Or does my comment reveal that I'm missing something?

Ravi

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[rczyzewski]

I'm using Spamnet for myself and a few of my users. Only problem is that they receive update popups one-three times a month. Since I limited their rights they get some error messages but can still install it, basically through brute force. so far i'm happy with the product.

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You are missing understanding of my mail ;-) I said that maybe there are people out there who enjoy using Outlook and do not want / cannot change it. Spamnet is a solution

Not everyone can change browsers / mail clients you know. And, believe me, there are people out there who rather like Outlook. I am one of them.

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[zrodney]

well, then you shous have made the title
"Since some of use like running Outlook"
and there would have been no confusion.

Windows can run stuff other than MS programs

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[Dot.Com.CEO]

How about you having read my message before replying to it?

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[jilles]

I browse with mozilla and I mail with outlook xp. Outlook is currently one of the best mail clients (in terms of features) and the mozilla mail client still needs a lot of work to even come close. Security is an issue with outlook only if you can't find your way to the preferences dialog to adjust security to the appropriate settings.

Spamnet is catching most of the spam on my machine now. I installed it two months ago and it has caught up of 95 percent of the spam I receive. More importantly, it hasn't miscategorized a single message.

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. You can run Mozilla under Windows.

Um. Why would you want to? IE/Outlook has been far better than anything from Netscape/Mozilla for years.

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[Reckless Visionary]

Unfortunately, Spamnet doesn't fully support IMAP. That makes it useless to me, but they say they're working on it.

Re:Since some of us run Windows,

[CvD]

I used to use Vipuls Razor, but I noticed it was marking email from Red Hat and CERT as spam, putting them into my spam folder. The distributed spam network is a good idea, but it sucks when it gets poisoned. Who does this?

Now I've got only relay checking and spamassassin, which works great.

Cheers,

CvD.

Mozilla 1.3a !

[Anonymous Coward]

Download it now and support the mozilla cause! We HAVE A RIGHT TO USE MOZILLA!

1.3a was released onto the nightly builds a few days ago.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest /

kill the spam. spam the kill. lick your nuts, kick their butts.

irc.webchat.org #spiderslair
ask for kc or scottk.

No, too obvious

[wiredog]

The "Freedom From Interference With Commercial Speech Act"

Re:No, too obvious

[saider]

This new law will force you to leave your radio and TV on even while you aren't paying attention to it. Furthermore junk mail will no longer be able to be discarded without an affidavit that states the recipient has read and understands the offer. Street mimes and homeless people wearing commercial signs must be paid attention to by anyone within a 10 foot radius. You will be required to sample every free offering at the Food Court in the mall and surveyors cannot be ignored. All fliers distributed on your vehicle must be followed up with a phone call or your vehicle will be impounded. You will be required to contact every business that advertises at sporting events if you choose to attend.

Failure to abide by these rules will result in the forfeiture of all assets and the garnishing of all wages earned, which will be deposited into the Federal Marketing Enforcement Fund. Monies from this fund are distributed to companies whose marketing campaigns are not successful.

Re:No, too obvious

[nrosier]

Don't see how this would apply here. There's no interference. The receiver of the mail still has the last word on what happens with his mail. It's just another way of filtering mail but not based on regexps on subject, sender etc... but on the likelyness of being junk.
For the moment, the filter only flags mails, it doesn't even delete/move them. At most. it will only move mail to certain folders (if you like the Trash folder).
I use Ifile and procmail to filter my mail. What would be next? A law prohibiting the use of filters on mail?
I guess spammers would like to see a law that forces me to look at spam but I don't see this happen.

My only complaint...

[Mustang Matt]

In Outlook Express, I can setup 100 different email accounts and not have a giant list of mail folders.

In Mozilla (last I checked) for every account you setup it creates a new set of folders.

Since I've got a catchall account, I'd like to tie multiple email addresses to one set.

Anybody out there on the Mozilla team listening?

Re:My only complaint...

[ChrisDolan]

No they likely aren't. They have this cool thing called Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/) which is designed to track bugs and new feature requests. If you want to be heard, that's the place to submit, not here.

It's like, if you want to submit a complaint to Microsoft, you write them a letter to their company address instead of, say, writing your complaint as graffiti on a New York subway car. Wait a minute, actually, you might run into a MS employee doing butterfly graffiti, so that's a bad analogy... Plus, a subway isn't a good metaphor for Slashdot. The /. crowd is much scarier.

Re:My only complaint...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anybody out there on the Mozilla team listening?

You'll probably want to start with nsMsgAccountManager and nsMsgDBView. Be sure to get approval from drivers before checking in your patch Mustang Matt.

Not enough

[sulli]

Spammers don't use relays these days, they use spam tools that directly SMTP the receiving mail server. So the receiver still needs to filter.

Re:Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... I see.
I wonder what those headers are with .kr, .tw, et al.
Do you actually ever look at the headers of your spam?

Anti-spam software: SpamNet

[MagicFab]

Speaking of SPAM filters... I use SpamNet with very good results. Unfortunately I'm stuck with OL2000 for now, so this is the closest I found to what I wanted.

research paper

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html

This was posted a while back. The best part is the 'example' section, because it shows you how this system gives you a nearly 0% false positive rate, and still maintains a very high rejection rate.

NO NO NO! IT'S A LEAKY ABSTRACTION!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use it! This system is destined to drag us down!!!!

It's a leaky abstraction! Mail users have to understand the basis for how to train mail filters! Users won't be able to handle this leaky abstraction! Having to know what the difference between spam and non-spam is simply exposing too much of the underlying details, and it will drag us down!

DRAG US DOWN!!!!

But will it get my e-mail back

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Mozilla for mail and one day I started it up and had lost all my settings including all my e-mail!

While the mail still exists in a plain text file, the profile was destroyed and I can't figure out how to rebuild it (a daunting task to do by hand in the first place).

No, it is not a corruption of the .msf folders and that if I delete them everything is rebuilt. This is an older bug and is not relevant in this case.

The problem is prefs.js and panacea.dat files, these were corrupted when moz crashed while running the quick start in the background.

This has not just happened to me, the newsgroup had several people that had the same problems. I would be cautious of using Mozilla for mail until after they have developed a program for rebuilding a profile (so you don't have to rebuild prefs.js and panacea.dat by hand).

If anyone has suggestions on how to rebuild prefs.js or what the settings are, please let me know. I liked using Mozilla for my e-mail but I didn't like losing easy access to 5 years of e-mail!!!

Outlook is part of the IE Package

[yerricde]

E-mail is Outlook's domain. Not IE.

It's possible to net-install Mozilla without installing Mozilla Mail, but the default setting includes both. It's possible to net-install IE without installing Outlook Express, but the default setting includes both. Thus, it is a fair comparison.

100. Bugzilla - OK, lots of people use this, but Bugzilla != Mozilla. So it's not like Mozilla has built-in Bugzilla features... This is unrelated to the list.

I think the point of that entry was that unlike IE's bug database, which only Microsoft employees see, Mozilla's bug database is 99% open to the public (the other 1% primarily covers unfixed security vulnerabilities).

Re:Outlook is part of the IE Package

[EvilOpie]

While it is true that you can install IE and not have it install Outlook Express, you can't update IE and not have it install Outlook Express. Ever try putting a service pack on either IE or windows and yet keep Outlook Express off of it at the same time?

Seriously... even on a system with the full version of Outlook, you will get the files for Outlook Express put on it at some point. The only thing you can really do is delete the icons for it. Trying to keep it uninstalled takes way too much work, compared to just letting it slide and deleting the icons that you find for it.

You know what would be cool?

[PDHoss]

If the spam filter could intercept outgoing mail. I would sneak into my goddamn in-laws house and install Mozilla if it would eat every forward-of-forward-of-forward-of-forward message they tried to forward to me based on rules like:

1. Says "someone is testing something and you get $NN.00"

2. Says anything like "angels watching over us" or "a mother's poem" or other such bullshit.

3. Says "This is really funny"

4. Says "We'll be over on Tuesday right during dinner when you are trying to put the moves on our daughter/your wife."

Umm, not the last one, really. Just got on a roll.

PDHoss

Re:You know what would be cool?

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Says "We'll be over on Tuesday right during dinner when you are trying to put the moves on our daughter/your wife."

You'd think that you'd want a warning if this is going to happen.

Oh well, everyone has their fetish, I guess.

Re:You know what would be cool?

[almightyjustin]

Umm...why don't you just use the feature as intended to mark the forwards you receive as junk. Duh.

Funny post, though; I need to get something like that for my mom :/

Re:You know what would be cool?

[SCHecklerX]

Just use spamassassin at home. My annoying cousin gets sent to the 'likely spam' folder quite frequently. Anything higher than 12 hits, however is /dev/null'd

Re:You know what would be cool?

[rthille]

> 4. Says "We'll be over on Tuesday right
> during dinner when you are trying to
> put the moves on our daughter/your wife."

yeah, because having them just show up while you're putting the moves on their daughter is so much better :-)

Re:You know what would be cool?

[EnglishTim]

But the problem with these forwarded-around things is that once they get into the hands of a spammer, they're a big juicy list of valid emails - and your email address will be on there and there's nothing you can do about it.

Eudora finally has the filter I need

[Continental Drift]

Eudora's latest version, 5.2, includes the ability to filter mail against your address book. If someone sends me mail and they are not on that address book or they don't use a special key word in the subject line, they get an automatic reply telling them to try again with that key word. Spammers will ignore that reply, so I'll only real people will include the key word, and then I can add them to my address book.

This, comibined with some clever regex filters I already had means that I can reliably get the 10% of my mail that I actually want to read.

Re:Eudora finally has the filter I need

[benzapp]

That is a fantastic idea... The reality is for most people a filter that only allows addresses found on a certain list is more than adequate. But we all lose the occasional email from someone we have lost contact with or who has changed their email without asking us. That is such a simple way around those few instances where you get an email from someone you don't already know.

Someone needs to add this to Mozilla

Re:Eudora finally has the filter I need

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to add this to Mozilla

Someone already did.

Re:Eudora finally has the filter I need

[yomegaman]

If I got a message back from someone asking me to resend it with a key word in the subject line, they'd get a message with the key phrase "fuck you". Geez, talk about rude! Passing along the inconvenience to everyone else is not a viable solution to spam.

Re:Eudora finally has the filter I need

[Sancho]

It's similar in approach to Spam Arrest Spam Arrest is annoying, and I refused to "authorize" my email address, which was problematic for me since the person using it was on a listserv I actively participated in. Every message I sent got me a Spam Arrest message sent to me asking for authorization.

Vote for it

[cheezycrust]

This is bug number 199684 in Bugzilla (no direct links from Slashdot, you know). They are not sure what to do about it, but they are thinking about it.

Re:Vote for it

[sstory]

Invalid Bug ID Bug #199684 does not exist. Please press Back and try again.

Re:Vote for it

[po_boy]

Danger, Will Robinson!
Bug #199684 does not exist

Re:Vote for it

[zonker]

huh... must be a bug in bugzilla then heheh :)

Re:didn't k5 already run a story on this?

[ergo98]

Really, eh? I mean, I turned on CNN today and they were reporting a story that I'd already heard on ABC News! The nerve! I sent them a letter saying "Um, excuse me, but I already heard that on ABC l053rZ!" They haven't replied yet.

To make matters even worse, when I was on the train I overheard two people talking about the Israeli conflict. I couldn't believe it! I mean, I heard someone talking about that LAST YEAR for crying out loud! That is so 2001! I told them that they're l4m3rZ for being so dated. They just seemed to ignore me though.

Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[SethJohnson]

Sorry if this comes off as a MS-bashing rant. It's not intended as such.

The fact that MS doesn't seem hard at work implementing spam filters in Outlook or popup blockers in IE is a good example of consumers suffering due to Microsoft's monopoly. It also demonstrates how Microsoft is able to leverage its monopoly in one area (mail and web clients) to build profit in another market.

This other market is it's aspring ISP services. The app and mail client development teams aren't implementing these features because the Microsoft ISP wants to be able to tout the ability to filter spam and block popups. If the browsers and email clients used by 90%+ of the internet users had these features, then it wouldn't be a selling point for their ISP. This is a clear example of the company witholding features in the free products so it can profit from the antidote.

It also demonstrates the lack of competitive pressures in the market that normally drives a company to implement features at a rapid pace. Consumers are stagnating with a product for which the developer has no competitive pressure to improve. Hence that list of 102 things Mozilla can do that IE can't do.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[schon]

Sorry if this comes off as a MS-bashing rant.

No need to apologize - I love a good MS-bashing rant as much as the next /.'er.. :o)

I do, however, feel that it's not as big a problem as you do..

The app and mail client development teams aren't implementing these features because the Microsoft ISP wants to be able to tout the ability to filter spam and block popups.

This may (or may not - although I'm inclined to agree with your views) be true, but the important thing to understand is that the MTA (ISP)-level is where spam blocking belongs.

The real problem with spam is that it steals bandwidth - blocking spam after it's already sitting in your mailbox is like closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children - the bandwidth has already been used, so you don't gain anything... having your email client "block" spam isn't really blocking it, it's just an automatic "delete key".. which is what the spammers want (how many of them say spam isn't a problem because you can "just hit delete")

MS's intentions aside, the solution they have is the correct one, even if their motives are suspect.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[bamm]

I see your bet and raise you an infinite number of software and hardware developers.

Installed anything on a MS platform lately? Everyone wants your email address, so they can give you better "support" by selling your info to hordes of spam artist. For instance, my Mom doesn't use Windows because it's easier to use or crashes less often. She uses Windows because CreateCard12 doesn't run on Linux. Her new printer didn't come with Linux drivers and neither did her scanner. MS retains its monopoly status for those reasons and it isn't about to jeopordize it's relationship with these software and hardware companies by helping prevent spam (unless the get $30 a month from you).

Bammkkkk

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about? Monopoly? I don't think so.. there are dozens of programs to block popups and spam! Where have you been?

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[novakreo]

I for one am quite happy for Internet Explorer to never implement tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, mouse gestures, or anything else which it currently lacks. It makes it much easier to convince people to switch browsers (if they don't care about security), and the fact that since 90% (or whatever the exact stat is) of the world uses IE and sees the pop-up ads means that advertisers aren't rushing about trying to circumvent the pop-up blocking.

In short, Microsoft is the open-source movement's greatest asset :-).

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[radiotalent]

... is like closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children...

And I thought the horse in The Ring was creepy.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[mpsmps]

Actually, Microsoft was ordered by the court to stop filtering spam because they were filtering out competitors' emails.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you've ever seen the cards you get from bluemountain, you'd understand why the filter classified them as spam...

It wasn't that the filter was malicious or even targetted at bluemountain - the cards were just 95% ad, 5% content.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. As family of an MS employee, I can assure you they're busting their asses to put some kind of spam filtering in Outlook. It makes them crazy that their flagship email client can't do a damn thing about spam.
For whatever reason they don't publicise it though, and I wouldn't expect any release for a while. But let me assure you, it's in the works.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[Clover_Kicker]

>The real problem with spam is that it steals
>bandwidth - blocking spam after it's already
>sitting in your mailbox is like closing the barn
>door after the horses have eaten your children -
>the bandwidth has already been used, so you don't
>gain anything

I disagree, this tool would spare me the time and annoyance of deleting the spam message by message.

(I don't dispute that spam is a terrible waste of bandwidth, but it's not the only problem.)

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[Ballsy]

How exactly did you want your ISP to notify you of the alleged spam that they filtered for you ? You might as well just use a web-mail solution like Hotmail to receive your email, so you can manually read the ones you like and check your "filtered" folder whenever you like. Keeping in mind, it's still the MUA that's performing the filtering here.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[ebyrob]

is like closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children

Ya, you should have shot those man-eating horses to begin with. Seriously though, don't you think we should have laws against this type of mail fraud (forging headers and the like) instead of simply trying to "block" the fraud at the ISP level? I suppose blocking as well can't hurt, but freedom requires punishing the guilty and only the guilty.

The last thing I want is Microsoft deciding which emails destined to me are "spams". (subscription email from FSF? Must be spam!)

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagree about the main problem with spam being bandwidth use. It's the distraction from doing the things that I'd rather be doing, namely reading and responding to non-spam mail.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[m00nun1t]

Actually, it's a good example of MS-bashing at work. Not your message - spam filtering.

I used the beta of IE5 with Outlook Express 5. That had a spam filter in it (this is... 3 years ago I think?). I'm not sure how good it was, but anything is better than nothing and it would have undoubtedly improved with time.

However, Blue Mountain greeting cards took Microsoft to court because the filter blocked their cards. Depends who you listen to (always a lot of FUD around these issues), but from what I've read of it, basically Blue Mountain has crappy mail headers which were intepreted as spam. Microsoft provided them with specific technical information on how to fix it, but Blue Mountain decided on the law courts instead. So, because someone (blue mountain) wanted to play the victim rather than get their act together, millions of people don't have spam filtering in their mail client.

So MSFT were several years ahead of Mozilla, but being the biggest worked against them.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[Refrag]

The real problem with spam is that it steals bandwidth - blocking spam after it's already sitting in your mailbox is like closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children - the bandwidth has already been used, so you don't gain anything... having your email client "block" spam isn't really blocking it, it's just an automatic "delete key".. which is what the spammers want (how many of them say spam isn't a problem because you can "just hit delete")

I'd argue that the time wasted on filtering spam is more valuable than the bandwidth wasted delivering it. This is why I am glad that Apple was able to bring good client-side spam filtering to the people with Mail and that Mozilla will soon provide this feature as well.

Re:Good example of MS's monopoly abuse

[grff]

> The real problem with spam is that it steals bandwidth

Hmmm I would argue that the real problem with spam is that it steals my time. Bandwidth is cheap. My time isnt, and I dont like it being wasted. So a client site spam filter is just fine with me :)

PC Build ready?

[roelbj]

The comments on Mozilla.org say this will feature in 1.3. The current downloads are only for 1.2. Is there a way I can get a build of 1.3 already? (Is that what the nightly builds are?)

Re:PC Build ready?

[rickymoz]

Exactly. Download the latest nightly for windows or for linux and you have the stuff. 1.2 is almost ready and it will take another 3 months until they are done with 1.3 (according to the roadmap , this will be around Valentine's Day next year.

Security fixes too...

[zen parse]

There is a flaw in jar file handling that may allow a user to execute arbitrary commands...

Its still too slow...

[suman28]

I know that M$ has played an underhanded trick by building IE into the OS, but it works fast. I know a lot of companies that write IE specific webpages. Mozilla is a good competitior, but it still has a lot of catching up to do. The load time is the first thing that needs to improve.

Re:Its still too slow...

[casio282]

IE starts up quickly in Windows because it is loaded into memory at system start up and runs in the background. When you "start" the program you are simply creating a new browser window. So you suffer the program start-up overhead when the system boots, instead of each time you create a new instance.

The good news is, for those inclined to sacrifice system performance for quick browser load times, is that this option is also available in Mozilla...Look under "Preferences...Advanced" for the Quick-launch option.

Re: Mozilla bloat [...] Gentoo

[delta407]

Before you Gentoo zealots get out here and plug your so-loved-distro, remember that even you don't have as much control as you could.

I disagree. See the Mozilla 1.1 ebuild for details. I can write:

# export USE="moznomail"; emerge mozilla

Or, if the ebuild still doesn't provide enough customization, I can just manually remove a config option (say, --enable-xsl) and "emerge mozilla" to get exactly what I want.

if spam gets through..

[EvilStein]

procmail filters, SpamAssassin, AND the new Mozilla spam filters.. can we make a law that will make it legal to find the spammers and execute them in public?

Pleeeease??

So you really want...

[dpilot]

You really want server-side filtering. I do that on my IMAP server with procmail, though not Bayesian. A quick google with "procmail bayesian filter" turns up quite a bit of interesting stuff to sift through. Of course if it's not your IMAP server, you're back to client-side solutions.

Re:So you really want...

[DeadSea]

It seems to me it would be possible to write a filter that works with IMAP but still runs on the client. Basically, the client would connect to the mail server from a cron job every 5 minutes (or just before your mail reader checks) and check for new email. It would filter any new messages and move the spam to the spam folder. When you check your email you would move spam it didn't catch to the spam folder and move stuff it marked as spam that wasn't back to the inbox. The next time the program ran, it would account for moved messages.

The great thing is that it wouldn't rely on any particular mail reader (you could even use imap webmail and switch between various reader), and you wouldn't have to run your own server.

"Bayesian filtering" aka "Naive Bayes"

[ghamerly]

This approach is more commonly called "Naive Bayes" classification in the field of machine learning. It is naive because it considers each word to be a feature (dimension), but it also considers each word in an email to be conditionally independent of all other words in the document (which is not true, but really useful in practice).

The author of the web page on using this technique to classify spam (Paul Graham) has a better explanation of Naive Bayes on this web page.

I've written my own naive Bayes classifier to identify spam, with less positive results than he reports. However, naive Bayes can be a very effective technique, and I can believe his results.

The two things you have to beware of when using it are "smoothing" probabilities of words you've never seen (you don't want them to always be zero, as straight naive Bayes will give you), and you need LOTS of training data for naive Bayes to work well. That means that you need to already have a fair amount of spam to identify spam well.

You can see a paper I wrote on using naive Bayes to classify hard drive failures here, or look for more stuff on naive Bayes on Google. Also, don't reinvent the wheel: Andrew McCallum has written a very good toolkit for doing these sorts of things in Bow.

Re:"Bayesian filtering" aka "Naive Bayes"

[dlakelan]

Bogofilter is an out of the box C based implementation of naive Bayesian spam filtering that WORKS. I've had 0 false positives over the last several weeks and almost 0 false negatives (maybe 1 or 2) I get about 20 spams per day.

Re:"Bayesian filtering" aka "Naive Bayes"

[standards]

Well, I certainly have a large volume of SPAM that I plan to use for training purposes. I'm not a big user of personal email, but somehow about 70% of all my incoming personal mail is SPAM. My Dad is much worse off.

I'm glad to see that the software industry is taking the SPAM problem seriously. And it's great to hear that more and more states, like Massachusetts, are enacting laws to curb the abuse of email systems.

I've been dependent on some static rules to curb SPAM (about 90% effective), but I think now it's time to implement more serious anti-spam measures.

Re:"Bayesian filtering" aka "Naive Bayes"

[ceswiedler]

Based on the last /. article on Bayesian filtering, I installed SpamProbe. I gave it a folder of about 70 spam emails, and a few hundred good emails I had in various folders. In the past few weeks, it's had one false negative, and a few false positives which were 'semi-spam' mailing list emails from Dell, RedHat, and Amazon. When I moved those emails into the 'recheck as good' folders, it learned its lesson.

It may be naive, but I was very surprised at how well it worked. It's better than SpamAssassin IMO, especially at foreign-language spam.

Re:"Bayesian filtering" aka "Naive Bayes"

[Anonymous Coward]

popfile is your friend =)

Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[divide overflow]

Since you must first download the content for client-side filtering to work you waste bandwidth. If you are truly bombarded by spam you still lose...your mail spool still gets filled up with stuff you don't want, your data transfers compete for bandwidth with the spam, storage hardware works harder storing data that will only be deleted. It raises everyone's costs, including yours.

We need to block undesired mail at the host, not filter it at the client. That way the spam never gets sent, the spammer gets the message that their attempt was futile, and bandwidth is conserved. Many ISPs already provide this service...we need to improve on it. And we need better tools for identifying and dealing with spammers. The current mail standards are woefully inadequate to this task.

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[ppetrakis]

There's an ISP here called Crocker Communications (www.crocker.com) that filters your email through a SPAM filtering service they contract. They then append the word "::SPAM::" to the subject and allow you to pop it along with your regular mail. So all you have to do is set up one rule to filter out most any spam you receive. I'm not sure if they offer an avenue to blacklist confirmed spammers though it's probably not far behind.

Peter

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[asn]

Blocking spam at the host is a problem because there is always the chance of false positives.

I want the chance to periodically review the spam I tag -- missing one important email is far worse than having to sort through any amount of spam.

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[bmwm3nut]

while i agree with this, there are some more things to worry about. with client side filtering you can still review the email marked as spam to check for false positives. the isp is saying what is classified as spam, not the user - this probably means that the spam threshold is low to prevent too many false positive, or if i were more paranoid i would say that spammers could call up an isp and offer to pay them to let their spam go through.

i think we could get away with client side filtering if EVERYBODY used it, that is, it's installed by default in outlook, hotmail, whatever grandma and grandpa use for their email. have big buttons that say "this is spam", and "this is a picutre of my grandkid, it's not spam", and the like. this way the client automatically learns without much/any added complication to the user. at first we're still wasting all the bandwith that's required in downloading and testing the email, but if 99% of the people never see the spam, they won't be able to reply to it. spamers will be out of buisiness and then they won't be using up the bandwith.

i think the key is to make it trivially easy for the average user to not see spam and then spammers will go out of business and all will be well.

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[spamacon]

While I agree that bandwidth is wasted, it is often more useful to actually read the email determine that an email is spam. (Sure, you don't want to go reading all of your spam just tell the filter that it is spam, that kinda kills the usefulness, but you have to train it...) If the host filtered, how would you tell the filter that it is an email from a friend, or from a spammer? Also, an approach like this on the client would be invaluable for things like your kids' email. I have friends (my kid is only a few months old, no email yet) whose kid gets some pretty explicit pr0n email, and a Bayesian filter would hide that pretty effectively. I would be heap big interested in something like this, and I am glad to see those intrepid young chaps at Mozilla working on it.

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[dveditz]

People are working on server-side solutions, see SpamAssassin and Vipul's Razor. If your ISP does not provide server-side support, though, a client-side solution is better than none.

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[Asprin]

We need to block undesired mail at the host, not filter it at the client. That way the spam never gets sent, the spammer gets the message that their attempt was futile, and bandwidth is conserved. Many ISPs already provide this service...we need to improve on it. And we need better tools for identifying and dealing with spammers. The current mail standards are woefully inadequate to this task.

Not that this would be practical or feasible, but suppose we designed a software system specification consisting of:

1) Decentralized database servers that communicates P2P-like to track and exchange statistics about what is spam and what is not....
2) Mail Server Plug-In/Filter that uses (1) to decide whether to deliver/mark/throw out mail based on a....
3) Mail Client Plug-In/Filter that receives mail from (2) according to a level of filtering you specify. Oh, and you can also vote on the mail that does get through to ID it as spam so the rest of the system gets it's statistics updated from your misfortune.

Sound good? Ok, now GO WRITE IT!

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[divide overflow]

1) Decentralized database servers that communicates P2P-like to track and exchange statistics about what is spam and what is not....

Like Vipul's Razor...

2) Mail Server Plug-In/Filter that uses (1) to decide whether to deliver/mark/throw out mail based on a....

Like SpamAssassin...

3) Mail Client Plug-In/Filter that receives mail from (2) according to a level of filtering you specify. Oh, and you can also vote on the mail that does get through to ID it as spam so the rest of the system gets it's statistics updated from your misfortune.

Although this takes more effort due to the need to support a number of different mail clients it appears that this may be doable on some platforms using software that supports SpamAssassin.

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[ppetrakis]

I'm sorry, maybe I was ambiguous in my post. Please read it again. They only tag what they think is spam. You then filter for that tag on -your- end and decide what is spam and what isn't. No host side filtering. If that where the case, I would totally agree with you :).

Peter

Re:Client-Side Filtering is Wasteful

[asn]

I read your post correctly. I responded about BLOCKING. Tagging on the host is cool... WE do it at our University and it captures almost everything except for email about animal rape which always seen to be just under the classification threshold... hrm...

Wake me up when it ships.

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome new feature on unreleased software.

Wake me up when it ships.

interesting idea...

[Lumpy]

what if in addition to this someone put together a company that the mozilla email client can report back to about what is labelled as span and the filters it created along with the headers of the message (or even the entire spam) and grab filters from others that recieves some spam that you have yet to recieve? it would be like a big distributed computing anti-spam project.. then if we were able to make the filters useable by sendmail to block at the server...

I'm almost thinking a distributed and automated anti-spam system like that could completely crush the spam problem within a 12 month period.

or I may be completely out of my mind.

Re:interesting idea...

[SandSpider]

That's a really cool idea in theory. In reality, you have to deal with trusting that everybody on the internet are trusted enough to decide what your spam is and isn't.

I mean, you've been on the internet before, right? You've seen the other people here, too? Think about it.

=Brian

Re:interesting idea...

[inerte]

If I would create a company to receive automatic spam reports I would also hire a bunch of lawyers to sue the spammers :)

How about a distributed spam lawyer project? Reporting a spam to the company would also mean I am willing to enter the lawsuit with others that received it, like a class action lawsuit.

Re:interesting idea...

[Dunkirk]

It's called vipul's razor.

Re:interesting idea...

[Gothmolly]

It's called Vipul's Razor, you insensitive clod!

Re:interesting idea...

[ceswiedler]

There are already efforts to do this. One is called Razor, IIRC. However, they haven't completely crushed the spam problem, and aren't likely to.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can turn that off though; and I recommend you do that.

I use Mozilla on OSX, Mandrake, and Win2000, and don't remember seeing that setting in the preferences? The ability to turn javascript off in email is definitely there.

Re:How?

[mark_lybarger]

Preferences -> Privacy & Security -> Images, you can turn off images in mozilla, or only in mail/news.

Teaching my computer

[guacamolefoo]

I have enough problems teaching my one year old not to eat dog food. I don't think I really want to have to educate my email client about spam, and then continue to monitor it to make sure it doesn't fuck up.

The problem with spam (for me) is that I have to waste time dealing with it or my existing filters sometimes accidentally chew up a legit message (rarely). The basic plan Mozilla seems to be after doesn't really fix that for me.

I do like the idea of allowing anti-spam plug-ins. Having a variety of methods to choose from will let me decide what, if any, third-party solution works best for me.

guac-foo

Re:Teaching my computer

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I've been running a Naive Bayesian filter for about 3 weeks now, and it's misclassified NO good email as spam, but it has marked about 10% of the spam as normal mail. As I understand it, my experience is entirely typical.

You still have to eyeball the subjects of the spam messages just in case, but the fact that you don't have to manually delete them is a very good thing- it does save quite a bit of time that they are already sorted; and as I said it hasn't fucked up once so far in that sense.

Also, I spend almost no time dealing with any filters. Once a week I take the pile of spam that it missed and tell it that it was in fact spam; it takes about 2 minutes and any similar spam will get spotted in future.

It's definitely a far more pleasant way to deal with the issue, and it does save time. It seems to be almost as good a scheme as any so far, and at the moment it looks unlikely that any scheme will outperform it by much; so it may well be 'good enough'.

Different technique

[JediTrainer]

I have a different idea. Well, it's not my idea - I remember reading somebody describing it on /. some months ago and it seemed brilliant.

The original idea described setting it up on the server side, but this should work on the client side as well, and might be a good candidate for a Mozilla mail filter plugin:

1 - download new message headers from server

2 - Compare 'from' email addresses to list of known people you accept email from. Only download mail from known senders.

3 - if email comes from an unknown party, email them with instructions to reply to your message, and put some word in your subject line (ie: activate). The word should be randomized to eliminate the spammer's chance of guessing it.

4 - if a message header is found with that subject from that sender, the sender can be automatically added to the 'known' list and the mail is downloaded

5 - if no further message received from that sender, delete their messages within X days (or download it and put in 'spam' mailbox just in case)

6 - user has capability of adding new 'known' senders, plus ability to blacklist senders who have authenticated (persistent spammer).

I can't think of any loopholes here - it seems that this might solve just about every spam problem I've ever come across. No reason why this can't be implemented on the client side (especially if you don't have control over the server). Any takers?

Re:Different technique

[olethrosdc]

This can lead to storage problems and a possible race condition. What about parties that do not reply? How long will they be kept in your 'list-of-people-I-have-sent-an-automatic-reply-to' ? What if you get a 'I-could-not-deliver-your-message' type of message? Automatically reply to that.. and .. hey.. you started a loop.

Re:Different technique

[q2k]

You can do all of this today with Pocomail.(on a Windows box) I already filter against my address book and specific "to" addresses for maillists. I haven't bothered to set up the automatic reply, but it could be easily done with Poco's native scritping capability.

Re:Different technique

[JediTrainer]

This can lead to storage problems and a possible race condition.

Obviously some of the issues need to be worked out, but I'm convinced that it can be done...

What about parties that do not reply? How long will they be kept in your 'list-of-people-I-have-sent-an-automatic-reply-to' ?

That can be easily configured by the user. I would suggest 3 days, but again, give the user the ability to add names to the list themselves (thus, making their messages visible).

What if you get a 'I-could-not-deliver-your-message' type of message? Automatically reply to that.. and .. hey.. you started a loop.

That's simple enough to do with a little coding. Only send one of those per address within a specified time. For example, I would think that only one autoreply would be necessary within a week's worth of time.

Re:Different technique

[IvoryRing]

I do this, started a while back (August). It works well most of the time. There are several situations that it doesn't work for me for:

1. Work related stuff - my job requires me to communicate with people that may very well be irate already - since I would rather decrease their iritation, this is a bad approach.
2. Mailing lists that change thier From (or Reply-To or Sender or Return-Path - I check all four for matches) header and then get ticked off at me for sending them a message explaining how to get on my whitelist. Some charming person was annoyed enough about this to go to my signup webpage, and put in three abusive email addresses complaining about it - but not actual email address so I could let them know that I fixed it and apologize. Oh well.
3. Confirmation loops (as metioned by a reply to you above) - if two people use this same scheme neither will ever know about the other person's 'signup here' message.
4. When you want the email but have no idea where it is coming from. For example: sign up with an airline for a frequent flier account. You want to add thier 'From' to your whitelist, but you don't know what it is going to be until after you get it. In this case, I simply turn off the filter entirely until I get the expected email. Yes, this does mean I get spam during that time.

By the way, I don't set up infinite loops, nor can my messages be used to repeatedly annoy a user by remote control, because I send one 'signup' message out to any given email address only once per 14 days.

In my case, I do not hold onto the message for later delivery - I ditch it immediately. This is in fact rather rude and I wouldn't advocate that anyone else do it this way, but it is simpler to program and I'm a lot ruder than that in RL.

Re:didn't k5 already run a story on this?

[ergo98]

Hehe, I have been troll baited. There are so many posts to ever Slashdot article yapping about having heard it somewhere else I just presumed this was legit. Looking that the Kuro5hin page it appears that it is not.

Sidenote: Is Jägermeister a really popular type of beer in some places? I've never seen one in my life, however I do find it humorous even seeing that name now...especially as it's often associated with ESR.

RE: sig

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but Quasimodo does.

Not impressed

[macdaddy]

Well, ok I am impressed that Mozilla is implementing spam filtering abilities in their MUA. I AM NOT impressed with Bayesian spam filters AT ALL. I've been using Mac OS X's Mail.app since I switched to OS X. It's not my primary MUA but I am letting it POP out a copy of all my mail and "learn" from it. It does a pretty good job of finding maybe 80% of the spam I get. However it has a BAD false-positive rate. I mean hell its been flagging CERT advisories as spam. That kind of crap is really annoying. It's flagged co-workers' mail as spam numerous times (and even though I happen to agree... :) ). The biggest problem I have with Bayesian as a mail admin is that I am constantly dealing with spam. Users forward it to me. I receive a number of spam bounces. I work in spam all that damned time. That's the problem. I need a MUA with Bayesian filters that are smart enough for me to tell them to ignore all mail from certain domains or that went to certain accounts. All of the Bayesian filters built into MUAs I've worked with so far can't do things like that. It's really annoying given the position that I'm in.

Re:Not impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, the MacOS Mail.app doesn't use Bayesian methods. It uses something called Adaptive Latent Semantic Indexing, which is quite the different beast.

Second, if you had bothered to read the FAQ, you would have seen a comment to the effect "Regular filters take predecence over Junk". This is so in (almost) every probabilistic/learning/adaptive filter I've seen or used. (I have not used the MacOS Mail personally, I can't say about it yet).

So stop whining and add rules for your organization and mail aliases, dammit!

Re:Not impressed

[self assembled struc]

if i'm not mistaken you can edit the SPAM rule in mac os 10.2 mail and add additional properities to it's rules.

the default is "if not in address book and it's SPAM" send to SPAM folder.

you should be able to add a properity to that rule that says

"if not in address book and FROM: doesn't contiain XYX.COM and it's SPAM" send to SPAM folder

you just add the properities before the SPAM one.

Re:Not impressed

[Knobby]

I've noticed a few false positives with Mail.app, but that's probably because I'm doing exactly what you just suggested.

Every time there's an article on /. about SPAM, there's a bunch of posts with filter definitions. I generally end up looking through those posts and adding a few new rules to my list. In the last 3 months I've accrued just under 70 messages in my junk mail folder. That's a small percentage of the 100's that are being trashed.

Re:Not impressed

[zonker]

jaguar's mail uses adaptive latent semantic analysis which if i understand correctly is similar to naive bayesian but not the same. anyone wanna correct me? anyway i understand what you are saying.

p.s. try popfile and see if it does any better for ya. it also has statistics tracking so you can see how well it is doing. it won't be able to ignore domains but you can make a feature request for that though...

Re:Not impressed

[tbmaddux]

However it has a BAD false-positive rate. I mean hell its been flagging CERT advisories as spam. That kind of crap is really annoying. It's flagged co-workers' mail as spam numerous times..

I had this problem early-on as well. I fixed it by marking the false positives as "Not Junk." You can do these even when it's in "Automatic" mode as opposed to "Training." All the "Automatic" does is enable the filter that send the marked messages to the "Junk" folder.

But it still learns in either mode! Early on my shipping notices from Amazon.com (and even Apple.com, ha ha) were being flagged as Junk, but not anymore. I think it's great and will only improve with time, with others' caveats about client-side email spam checking being flawed noted.

Re:Not impressed

[The Raven]

That's what whitelists are for. Whitelist the people/domains that forward you legitimate spam.

Re:Not impressed

[itsmarcos]

I am not surprised you are not impressed. A problem with Bayesian approaches is that when you get a very high percentage of spam in comparison to normal email the filters become very unstable and error prone. Having tried bayesian filtering I switched back to the following filter steps:

• Check accross whitelists for trusted users and domains.
• Check accross blacklists of known sources of spam (domains and some users)
• If an email doesn't hit a whitelist or a blacklist do the following:
• Check against some very simple header rules associated with spam.
• If it doesn't hit the header rules use spamassassin. Persistent spammers who hit spammasssin are automatically blacklisted. Spamassassin uses scores on hand-crafted rules to filter spam that are unbeatable by simple word scores.

All this, is incredibly effecive in terms of filtering spam out and in terms of speed. I get less than 0.2% of false positives and almost zero false negatives.

Apple Mail

[mbbac]

Mozilla Mail alphas now features Bayesian filters as seen in Apple Mail 1.2? Cool. I love Mail's spam filtering in OS X. It works extremely well! I very, very rarely get spam in my inbox anymore and I used to get dozens a day.

I wonder how well Jaguar's Mail spam filters work for CmdrTaco and his hundreds of spams a day on his PowerBook...

Emacs!

[MosesJones]

This is something that Emacs has in the GNUS client, you score emails up and down and it starts adding filtering rules. Using LISP you could extend this to do some pretty funky moderating.

Every problem is reducable to a previously solved problem or by definition is unsolveable - Church Turing Thesis.

Spellchecker for Mozilla

[WankersRevenge]

I use Mozilla for my mail. I installed a spellchecker I believe from Mozdev. It's pretty good and can be found here

Re:Spellchecker for Mozilla

[Deinst]

The problem with the spellchecker from Mozdev is that there are no binary .xpis for Mozilla 1.1 and 1.2. The source compiles to a somewhat workable, somewhat flaky spellchecker, but not solid enough to justify distributing binaries, and I have not had the time to dig into the sources of the flakiness. There are binaries for some systems here thanks to Stuart Johnston.

That said, it looks very likely that there will be a new spellchecker architecture in 1.3 real soon now, and I will endeavour to provide a simple spellchecker for it.

The ultimate filters

[TigerTime]

There needs to be a tiered structure with filters. The main one would be at the ISP level. It would only filter out obvious spam(like spam going to 2000 users at that ISP). The second tier would be at the client side and would have a certain level of intelligence in identifying spam. One feature that I'd like (it might already be available) is if it could automatically send an email back to the sender saying the email address doesn't exist. This should be done at the server level and/or client level. This could possibly help in removing your email from such lists. As far as what to do with the spam at the client level, I think that it should be sent to your main inbox but just marked as spam (maybe greyed out or something). Like new mail is always bold and once you read it it goes to a regular font. Well, spam could be just greyed out. That way you would ever miss something that the spam filter had a false hit on.

Re:The ultimate filters

[Reckless Visionary]

if it could automatically send an email back to the sender saying the email address doesn't exist

I love! this feature of some email progs, notably Mail on OS X, called "Bounce to Sender". Admittedly, there is the annoyance that you almost always receive another server message telling you that your bounce email was sent to an address that doesn't exist, but in those cases where you don't, it may help get off some spam lists.

Re:The ultimate filters

[kalinh]

fastmail.fm, which has become one of my favorite companies on the net, has a bounce feature on their webmail interface which brings one no end of joy bouncing stuff back (even though most from addresses are bogus). They also use spamassasin on thier premium accounts which doesn't delete the mail but simply adds a X-Spam: (or some such) header, you can filter it however you like after that.

Accessing my mail through IMAP with evolution I'm a big fan of doing exactly what you said, basically testing for the spam header and displaying the mail in a different color or moving it to an alternate folder (I'm super paraoid about false-positives although I've never seen one with spamassasin).

SpamCop!

[JediTrainer]

How about a spamcop-like plugin? Or something that can submit my message plus contents to SpamCop?

If using SpamCop, there should be a way to still show the site's banners, because they deserve to get paid for their bandwidth I'm using up.

I'd love to just be able to right-click on a message and report it to the various abuse/postmaster accounts without having to copy my whole message plus headers, and pasting such into their web form. SpamCop seems to be pretty good at tracing the origins of messages, so I'd love to be able to leverage that sort of functionality.

Re:SpamCop!

[onomatomania]

When you sign up for spamcop, you get a unique email address to which you can forward you spam. It's something like sumbit.(gibberish)@spam.spamcop.net. Anyway, just add this to your address book and forward you spam to that address. Spamcop replies with an email that contains a web link to click on to finish the reporting, where you add your comments and select which addresses to send to.

It amazes me that anyone actually cuts and pastes message text.

"Junk Mail" Button

[kstumpf]

I've use this ancient mail client called Calypso for years now. One of the reasons I continue to use it is its filtering capabilities. It has a good interface, its very configurable (you can control if the message is deleted locally, remotely, marked read, lots more), and it has a "Junk Email" button. Click on an email, hit the junk button and it deletes it and creates a filter for any more messages like it. One click and the mail is gone from my mailbox entirely and I dont get any more.

Mozilla Mail has decent filtering, but it needs more options and it needs to be more accessible before I can use it.

Re:Am I the only one

[AdeBaumann]

This post in a thread that mentions goatse.cx is slightly... scary.

WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "Bayesian spam filter" going to become another overused and self-parodying buzzword, like "Beowulf cluster"? It's been bandied about in probably a third of all /.'s stories these days.

Re:WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think how a Bayesian Spam Filter would classify this article!

Re:didn't k5 already run a story on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

jagermeister is not beer. it's hard liquor! its popular amongst bikers and college kids. i saw a guy with a jagermeister tattoo once...

Hmm, my spam experiences

[krappie]

I personally dont really care about all the junk emails I get. I dont get that many, and I can pretty much tell without looking at them. They go straight to /dev/null.

Spam is such a horrible thing though. I work at a webhosting company. Im the one that has to track down the site with the old formmail.pl, removing 'aol.com' and 'yahoo.com' from the hosts to relay for, trying to find out who the hell added them so I can murder them. Im the one clearing out the mail queue with 100,000 mails. Im the one clearing the mail queues of people who thought it was a good idea to check the 'open relay' option in plesk. Im the one that has to deal with people bitching about how their mail isnt working or didnt get through.

Just the other day, I had a raq2 where someone had apparantly put yahoo.com and excite.com in the hosts to relay for. Yay! Thats what attracted the spammers. Now I get a request every second to send mail to 50 people at once. Now that I've removed them, none of them are getting through. But its a raq2, 133 mhz. It has to go through all 50 addresses and say 'relaying denied' and log it. It cant keep up! syslogd is taking up all the cpu and logging things from hours ago because its behind. Quickly, sendmail quits listening on port 25 (but the spam attempts keep coming somehow).

So I get the idea to block their ips, they seem to be using the same ips. But oh guess what, they're using open proxies and have about 400 ips. Well, I did this for about 5 hours, writing scripts to grab the repeated ips out of the maillog, adding them all to my sendmail access lists. Now every time they try to send mail, it blocks them instead of saying relaying denied 50 times for each request. But a minute later, I get a few new ips and it starts all over again. I have an access list about 6 pages long. Its doing ok, blocking about 90% of them, but every once in a while, they get a new ip and sendmail is brought to a stop.

Oh yeah, and my /var/ partition is only 200MB, 50mb free. And the maillog is growing at about 10mb a day. So now Im babysitting this server every day until the spam attempts stop. I dont think theres any way around it unless I get sendmail to check for open proxies. But I dont know how to do that, and I dont think they trust me enough to make such changes to sendmail.

So oh well, mail is getting lost every day on this server and its been renderred horribly slow for its users.. just because some moron noticed it would send some emails for him and started up his scripts.

Spam causes so many problems on the server level. Its what is making mail an unreliable service. I could care less about spam filters on my mail client. These are the things that make spam evil!

Re:Hmm, my spam experiences

[Anonymous Coward]

I too had this problem.

In my case, I perservered and am now working with the Feds to go after the person who exploited a client's form-mail script. With any luck, we'll make an example of this group. We froze all logs and evidence and have a very strong case to nail the attackers. Most importantly, we've got the authorities to burn a case number and we will be moving forward taking down the perpetrators. The spammers think that they are untouchable. They're about to get a rude awakening.

Let me also state this: If you PROBE for a network vulnerability, that is considered an attack! In my case, the authorities are less interested in finding the spammer as they are tracking down the initial probes of the network looking for the exploitable script. They figure the scanner will lead them to the spammer, and they're probably right.

I encourage all ISPs to burn their logs and mail queue to CDROM and immediately open an FBI complaint to their computer crime division. The Feds are beginning to take this stuff seriously as they finally are understanding that the spam industry is one of the most innovative groups in advancing computer-terrorism.

Re:Hmm, my spam experiences

[withinavoid]

Working for a large ISP I see SPAM issues all the time. Most of them are filtered but some get through. Almost always they are from too many different source addresses. Had a dictionary attack just the other day but luckily the Subject lines all began with the same text, with the end of the line different for each message. Was able to just do a subject filter to discard the emails and return the SMTP servers to normal load.

I place the subject filters after the 'check_relay' section, example:

D{STEpat}Greenspan Drop
D{STEmsg}This message is SPAM
R${STEpat} $* $#discard
RRe: ${STEpat} $* $#discard
-or to give error message instead of discard-
R${STEpat} $* $#error $: 553 ${STEmsg}
RRe: ${STEpat} $* $#error $: 553 ${STEmsg}

You can put a much more interesting error message to return of course. ;-)

Re:goatse.cx UPDATE

[Anonymous Coward]

When will soon be now?

Re:MS Patent - Start looking for Prior Art!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope somebody can find some prior art on this. I just (quickly) read the claims and body of the patent and it sounds very much like the techniques that have been described here previously.

Unfortunatly, the Patent was issued in Dec 2000; the first time I heard this idea was the Paul Graham implementation in the last few months.

So, if this is all old hat to anyone out there, please do everyone a favor and find that prior art and let everyone know, so that, in 5 years when MS trys to enforce this patent, there is a defense.

And if it's anything like Apple's Spam Filter

[Loco3KGT]

It will filter out grades from your professors, email from your parents about your credit card bill, and online order verifications sent via email!

*snap*NO MATTER HOW MANY DAMN TIMES YOU CLICK THAT F'N "NOT JUNK" BUTTON*/snap*

Spam is bad. Spam filters that filter personal mail out is badder.

your .sig

[Anonymous Coward]

--- Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Two brothers immigrated to a mostly Catholic country, hungry and looking for work. Pavlov, whose forehead was quite thick, found work at a monastery bell tower. The monks taught him to tell time, then sound the bell when appropriate. Not too bright, Pavlov missed the part about how to sound the bell. So he notes the time on his handy wristwatch, climbs the belltower, inches up to the edge of the platform, and dives face first into the massive centuries-old bell. KKKLLLAAANNNGGG!!! Poor Pavlov falls to his death hundreds of feet below.

Apparently, monks don't communicate very well. No one in the crowd gathered around Pavlov's remains could identify him. Finally one monk admits, "I never caught his name, but his face sure rings a bell."

Mysteriously, a man steps forward from the crowd and insists on taking Pavlov's place as caretaker of the belltower. One of the monks removes the wristwatch from Pavlov's arm, gives it to the mystery man, and precedes to indoctrinate him in his duties. On the hour, just like Pavlov, our mystery man ascends the tower, perches on the edge -- but this time wielding a massive sledgehammer. He leaps towards the bell and smashes it with Thor-like fury. KKKLLLAAANNNGGG!!! The poor fool falls to his death in a manner very similar to Pavlov's.

Much like deja vu, a muted crowd gathers around the mystery man's remains. After an extended silence, one monk asks, "Does anyone know this man's name?" Answers another, "No, but he's a dead ringer for his brother!"

Re:your .sig

[Anonymous Coward]

proceeds, not precedes ... still quite humorous!

Re:your .sig

[SteelGator]

Slashdot emits a huge collective grooaaan!

Won't anyone PLEASE think of the popup advertisers

[Tired_Blood]

However, I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE (and MS employees can already use these features)

IE is the most widely used brower and pop-up advertising has become part of the Internet Experience. If MS decides to incorporate popup blocking in IE, then the pop-up advertising business is RUINED! They'll just be another group victimized by a huge corporation. These people have families to support and will be forced to send their children to public schools. Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

And all this news about fixing vulnerabilities within Windows is going to affect the virus community as well (both authors and anti-virus). Worrying about vulnerability exploits has also become part of the computer experience.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the virus writers?

Outlook

[Anonymous Coward]

Can one do this with cough... cough... Outlook?

Re:Outlook

[dolmen.fr]

Use a firewall software (such as Tiny Firewall which 2.0 was free, 4.0 seems not to be anymore) and allow Outlook only ports 110 (POP) and 25 (SMTP) to your ISP hosts.

Re:Outlook

[Graspee_Leemoor]

I can heartily not recommend Tiny Firewall.

It falls over.

It falls over often.

Guess what happens when it falls over ?

Every packet comes sweeping through.

Belive me, I thought I had discovered heaven when I first found Tiny Firewall- wow! It's free! It's for Windows! Now I have a firewall to recommend to all my Windows-using friends!

But I speak from bitter experience. It sucks.

graspee

Personalised solution

[5lash]

I personally don't think that systems like this can work that well. Everyone seems to get different type of spam, and you're best bet is to create your own filters. About 80% of my spam messages have wierd foreign characters in it (like Á), so I've got filters in Eudora to delete anything with one of these characters in the Subject or Body. Then obviously anything with "porn", "sex" etc, although spammers dont seem that stupid anymore. This way I only get 5-10 spam messages in my inbox per day, maximum. And this takes me about 20-30 seconds to deal with, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

That's great, but...

[hawkbug]

I'm running a sendmail server, and I access via webmail accounts, pine, and Mozilla. I would like to add this new type of spam filtering to sendmail directly. Does anyone know if this is something that can be added to sendmail, rather than a specific mail client like Mozilla?

Real spam control..

[grub]

.. should start at the server preventing the offending mail from ever coming into the network in the first place.

Not that localized spam filters are a bad thing (they aren't!) but refusing connections from known spammer IPs and the proper use of blacklists would cut down on a lot of the email traffic. Once the spam is in your inbox, its just an annoyance to you. The cost to the net has already been incurred.

Re:Real spam control..

[William Tanksley]

Yes, it'd be wonderful to stop spam from ever being published. It'd save a lot of money. But it's impossible.

refusing connections from known spammer IPs and the proper use of blacklists would cut down on a lot of the email traffic.

NO. Blacklists are a horrible, horrible non-solution. Once an IP address is on a blacklist it's almost impossible to get it off, so it's useless -- so the spammer just gets a new one, and lets the old one rot. So it doesn't even slow them down!

For arguments against blacklists, see
http://www.paulgraham.com/falsepositives.html

Those things are not just bad, they're REALLY bad.

I wouldn't at all object to a mail relay running its own simple mail filter to reduce the load on other machines -- but it'd better not EVER, ever have a false positive. And honestly, that's the point I just can't believe.

-Billy

It learns from the spam you receive...

[Aquillion]

"...good morning, Dave. You have recieved spam again. I have been analyzing the spammer's patterns, and I believe I have figured out the most efficent way to protect humans from the harm of spam while adhering as closely to the First Law as possible. To protect them from spam, humans must be pushed. They must go down the stairs. Please go stand by the stairs, so I can protect you."

They're only doing this to compete with Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

The Opera 7 beta was released yesterday that has a working spam filter for its mail client.

Re:They're only doing this to compete with Opera

[Ilgaz]

Opera 7 beta shipped.... Unlike every single +0.001 release of Phoneix, it doesn't make news on Slashdot.

Gee they coded it from the start and surprisingly, its faster,smaller, unlike netscape 6-7 teached us... http://www.opera.com

Mozilla fanatic moderators will burn points now, so I hate doing it but sending with score +1 bonus. At least, some of Slashdot readers would be AWARE...

Playing games Slashdot? :)

Spam filters should bust the spammers, also.

[Futurepower(R)]

Software that only does mail filtering encourages spammers. The technically knowledgeable people don't get spam, so they stop worrying about it.

All mail filters should also use a service like SpamCop, so that the spammers lose their internet service accounts as the spam is filtered.

I send Spamcop all my spam. Spamcop analyzes it automatically and sends a message to the Internet Service Provider. I use the free Reporting only service.

Anti-Anti Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how hard would it be to put a


these are all no spam words that will trick your program into thinking they are valid tokens and skew the results so that this message is a false negative (meaning that you don't think it's spam, but it is)

Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it odd people complain about tons of spam all the time. I never get any. Though, I never give out my email address to any online sites except for people I know, and I'm hosted on yahoo...I guess a lot of spam is problems for microsoft and aol customers. Why is that? I mean, people on aol who never give out their email addresses get spam, but how can that be? the companies don't give out their customers email addresses, do they?

Re:Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Post your address on this site. Wait 3.5 minutes.

TMDA

[ptbarnett]

You are describing Tagged Message Delivery Agent.

But will it be in Evolution?

[mshiltonj]

I may drop Evolution in favor of Mozilla Mail.

I tried to find out if the Evolution dev team was going to do this. The only thread I could find on the topic is here:

http://lists.helixcode.com/archives/public/evoluti on/2002-August/020845.html

Doesn't look like it's part of their vision.

My Problem with Mozilla sorta OT

[pneuma_66]

I love mozilla, and use it as my main browser. However my biggest complaint is that all the components (browser, mail, composer, etc) should be separate apps. I don't like the fact that if my browser crashes, so does my email reader, and vice versa.

I tried to find some documentation on how to acheive this, however, there was none to be found. Does anyone know how to do this, the I can use Mozilla's mail, rather than the flaky mail app that comes with OSX.

Re:My Problem with Mozilla sorta OT

[RazzleDazzle]

Use another mail client unassociated with Mozilla. If you feel adventureous try mutt.

Re:My Problem with Mozilla sorta OT

[wizarddc]

There are people working on this. Currently, Phoenix is the brower only app. It's lean, quick, and efficient. Bugs are still being worked out, but it's very usable right now. Also, K-Meleon is a browser that uses the Gecko rendering engine, but not the Mozilla XUL interface.

As for email/news clients, there are two, I believe. Thunderbird and Minotaur. Neither are out at all yet to use.

Re:My Problem with Mozilla sorta OT

[yomegaman]

The problem is the original poster is running OS X and none of the programs you listed are available for it. Perhaps Chimera would be a better choice for a Gecko-based browser? You can find out about it at mozilla.org.

Re:My Problem with Mozilla sorta OT

[alexpage]

Assuming you're running under Linux, running mozilla -no-xshm will run a second instance which is completely seperate from the first (by default, Mozilla instances share memory for the XUL framework which is why they go down together). I do this to run two mozilla instances - one for the HTML I'm working on (sometimes obscure CSS bugs kill Mozilla) and one for Slashdot etc.

Just start up the mail client in one of the instances and kill the browser (there's probably a command-line to just load the mail client), and the two will co-exist peacefully and not affect each other if one crashes.

Jeez

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then, if you DEAL with spam, and stuff that looks exactly like spam, you are a teeny, tiny exception case that isn't really who this filter was intended for. What do you expect? It sounds like you want a lot of work for an extremely minute purpose.

It's like saying you don't like the way HBO does things because you are a writer who reviews commercials.

Ridiculous.

Here's the link

[ChrisCampbell47]

A dozen or more replies and yet no link to it .. OK, I'll spend the 1.5 minutes posting it ...

101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that IE cannot

Re:Here's the link

[OneIsNotPrime]

Wow... I'm sort of a skeptic but after reading that list I was convinced to download and try Mozilla. I'm viewing this site with it right now, and I must say, I'm very impressed! This is great; many of these features are surprisingly practical. I'll have to spread the word about this... I really underestimated how far along development was. Thanks -

tmda.net?

[Sludge]

Has anyone tried Tagged Message Delivery Agent out? I would be curious to hear the mileage of others who have tried this.

Essentially, it throws the parsing problem right back in the spammer's faces: They must answer a fuzzy logic question in order to get into your inbox once and for all. It is similar to challenge/response routines in network connection code to prevent spoofing. The most interesting part from the intro:

The way TMDA thwarts incoming junk-mail is simple yet extremely effective. You maintain a "whitelist" of trusted contacts which are allowed directly into your mailbox. Messages from unknown senders are held in a pending queue until they respond to a confirmation request sent by TMDA. Once they respond to the confirmation, their original message is deemed legitimate and is delivered to you.

Bayesian filters to me, seem to work if you are a dull person without many changes in your life. For ex, if you constantly get spams with the word Madam in it and you later on get a sex change, you will need to recalibrate your filters. (Probably not the most pressing thing on your mind, so you'd lose a few authentic mails.)

Just some thoughts.

Re:tmda.net?

[scrytch]

Essentially, it throws the parsing problem right back in the spammer's faces: They must answer a fuzzy logic question in order to get into your inbox once and for all.

As someone who does email support, lemme tell you just HOW MUCH I love those fucking responders. Nothing like deliberately making my job harder. Sure would be nice if these services would automatically whitelist addresses you sent mail to first.

Re:tmda.net?

[William Tanksley]

Essentially, it throws the parsing problem right back in the spammer's faces: They must answer a fuzzy logic question in order to get into your inbox once and for all.

It also throws that problem in the face of everyone who wants to communicate with you. That rather clearly indicates an arrogant attitude to most people, and definitely is a barrier to communication.

Bayesian filters to me, seem to work if you are a dull person without many changes in your life.

Wrong. Bayesian filters _learn_, they're not static.

For ex, if you constantly get spams with the word Madam in it and you later on get a sex change, you will need to recalibrate your filters.

So, you have no idea how Bayesian filters work. You seem to have them confused with regexp filters, and really stupidly configured ones, at that. (Imagine throwing away an email because it contained a /single/ slightly negative word!)

-Billy

Re:tmda.net?

[Tsuzuki]

Bayesian filters to me, seem to work if you are a dull person without many changes in your life.

Changes? You mean like having to find new friends and associates after all the current ones tag you as an arsehole? ;)

Dealing with Spam

[mabu]

I am completely against all client-based spam filters. This essentially does nothing to address the most serious repurcussion of spamming, and that's exploitation of third-party networks & bandwidth. Aside from the fact that client-based spam filtering is most-likely the least effective solution and more likely to stop legitimate mail than other methods such as known spam relay blocking.

Ultimately, the only way we're going to really curtail spam is by enacting harsh *criminal* penalties for mail relay and server hijacking, which is the standard method by which most spam is distributed. It's true that these activities are already considered illegal but the law enforcement agencies are either unwilling to take action because there's a minimum threshold of monetary damages required, or they're ill-equipped knowledge and technology-wise to aggressively go after these people.

And Puleeze don't even bother with the ineffective, "let the industry regulate itself" argument, which doesn't work. Most spammers are small "cell groups" that move around a lot; most don't have any money in the first place; only criminal penalties are going to work, and client-side and industry regulated efforts don't stop their efforts at all and just drive bandwidth charges up for the rest of us.

Re:Dealing with Spam

[dismayed]

It doesn't address the larger issue, but people want the bandaid to fix their problem... for most people its the client side issue right now that can be dealt with...

Aside from the fact that client-based spam filtering is most-likely the least effective solution and more likely to stop legitimate mail than other methods such as known spam relay blocking.

There are larger client based issues than blocking "known spam"... SPAM is not always the pr0n,get rich quick, etc spam as it is known to us techies... Its also say the >>FWD:>>FWD:>> chain letters that Aunt Bettie forwards you, etc.
Client side "SPAM" filters are also just better filters in general and will help clients in managing their email.

AOL Netscape

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if AOL/Netscape will remove this feature, like they did with the popup-blocker.

Re:Won't anyone PLEASE think of the popup advertis

[AKnightCowboy]

And all this news about fixing vulnerabilities within Windows is going to affect the virus community as well (both authors and anti-virus). Worrying about vulnerability exploits has also become part of the computer experience. Won't someone PLEASE think of the virus writers?

What's next? Blocking spyware from installing? Cats sleeping with dogs? Muslims hugging Christians? Republicans dancing with Democrats? This is just madness.

Sort by Spam Probability

[Krellan]

It seems too many people distrust spam filters because of the chance of accidentally blocking an important legitimate message as if it were spam.

Many spam filters are strictly binary: a message is either spam, or not spam. This is not ideal, because "gray area" messages - between these two extremes - will likely not be sorted correctly.

I propose adding a new sort option to email clients.

Sort by Spam Probability

This would be an additional field that can be displayed in a message list, similiar to "To", "From", "Subject", and the like. Like the article, probabilities would range from 99% (almost certain spam) to 1% (most likely an innocent message). Notice that 100% accuracy either way is not claimed.

This way, the user can see up front the messages that are most likely not spam. The spam messages will be relegated to the bottom of the list, possibly colored to indicate their likelihood of being spam. If there is a message in the "gray area", it will most likely appear in the list between the legitimate messages and the spam, so the user will have a chance to see the message and make a decision, without the message being lost in the shuffle.

This would be a great feature. I hope this gets into Mozilla's mail client.

(BTW, another feature that would be great to see in mail clients would be datestamping of the actual time the message was downloaded. Many spammers, and innocent people with misconfigured clocks, send emails with wild dates that are not to be trusted. You can see this in yearly archives of GNU "mailman" mailing lists! Datestamping emails as they are downloaded will also keep mailboxes in order when sorted by date, as newly arrived messages will always be at the bottom, instead of being scattered throughout the inbox. But sorting by spam probability will probably become more popular than sorting by date....)

Re:Sort by Spam Probability

[ghamerly]

Since naive Bayes gives probabilities, this is easy to get out of what Mozilla (and Paul Graham, and others) are trying to do. However, it is well-known that the probabilities that naive Bayes classifiers give are typically exaggerated (too close to either 0 or 1). This is partly because of the naive assumption (conditional independence of features).

However, while the probabilities themselves may be exaggerated, they are also usually found to be ranked correctly, which would give you what you want here -- a ranked list of possible spams.

Re:Sort by Spam Probability

[brw215]

Actually in theory you could can "set" a threshold for SPAM detection with a Bayes filter.

Bayes therom is something like (note the Pr(mail) term is dropped):

PR("SPAM" | mail) = Pr(mail | "SPAM") * Pr("SPAM")
vs.
PR("LEGIT" | mail) = Pr(mail | "LEGIT") * Pr("LEGIT")

A bayes classifier always picks the label (spam, not spam) with the higher probability or

Pr("SPAM" | mail) vs. Pr("legit" | mail)

The spread between these two numbers is going to define the "certainty" that any given mail is in fact SPAM. You could either sort your incoming mails by this spread or color almost definite ones red, most likely yellow etc......

Re:Sort by Spam Probability

[Nathanbp]

You can do sorting by time recieved (by your mail server) in Outlook Express (& Probably outlook). Just right click on the list of columns at the top, hit "Columns..." and select "Recieved" to display the time recieved, then click on the column to sort by it.

Re:Sort by Spam Probability

[FatZZ]

Re date sorting, Mozilla does this with View menu / Sort by / Order received. I know it works for IMAP; not sure about POP because I've never tried.

Spamassassin on Windows

[TheSync]

Dare I say it, my wife's work uses Windows desktops. She answers an email address that gets several hundred spams per day. She is trialing SpamAssassin Pro with Outlook, it seems to be doing good so far.

SpamAssassin Pro also has an enterprise version for Exchange, but I can imagine a lot of Exchange admins fearing fooling around with it too much.

Re:Spamassassin on Windows

[Reckless Visionary]

Again, this is for POP3 accounts. I'd love to try it, but it needs to have IMAP support.

Bayes filters can't adapt to text in images

[DuSTman31]

As a popfile user, I'm quite impressed with the catch rate possible with bayes theorem spam filters, however I suspect this will decrease in effectiveness over the long term.

Spammers are likely to respond to filters like this by encoding text in ways the filters can't read but humans can (eg having a .gif file of the text, loaded by a HTML statement in the message).

Statistical filters would need to have some kind of built in OCR routine before it could be effective against that trick, and some respectible mailing lists are using images as well, so you can't just filter all mails with images attatched.

In the long term, therefore, I suspect that filters that use a network database of spam will be more successful.

Re:Bayes filters can't adapt to text in images

[endersdad]

Ever since I checked 'Do not load remote images in Mail & Newsgroup settings' I haven't even seen an image in my email messages. This is in fact THE reason I switched from Outlook in the first place.

Re:Bayes filters can't adapt to text in images

[mino]

Spammers are likely to respond to filters like this by encoding text in ways the filters can't read but humans can (eg having a .gif file of the text, loaded by a HTML statement in the message).

And, most likely, you would soon see IMG and SRC move very quickly up the list of 'spam tokens'; if an email is just images and nothing else non-spam, they'll most likely start getting filtered again... that's the beauty of it.

Re:Bayes filters can't adapt to text in images

[anthony_baxter]

You'd be suprised how much you can dig out of the URLS. The spambayes project has code in there to tokenize the URLs from img type tags, and it's remarkably effective at killing these spams.

That is, if anyone could actually *use* Lisp

[Royster]

Instead of being used by Lisp.

i'm happy this is starting to appear...

[zonker]

...in clients. i'm a big fan of popfile but i'm looking forward to a day when eudora etc. will perhaps use some kind of bayesian or adaptive latent semantic analysis filtering techniques in addition to their current methods.

brain fart... block HTML in e-mail?

[Micah]

The big problem with this is spam still gets to the server. :(

Just thought of this now... but it seems like almost all spam these days contains a whole bunch of HTML tags. Maybe someone should write a server plugin to instantly reject all mail containing , instantly adding the sending IP to a iptables DROP rule.

There's little legitimate e-mail with tables, unless you count paypal, datek, and travelocity news and that kind of crap. But we could always add a list of "good" IPs.

I know there are server solutions, but all make me a bit queasy. I just want something that will detect funky activity on the fly and instantly deny all access to that IP.

True but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spam Cop is a pay for use service. It is somewhat punishing the technically adept to make us use spamcop. However if the project wanted to gave a greater spam database, perhaps they would contribute to the Mozilla code base and make the filter rule forward them the spam.

right!

[JediTrainer]

Thank you. I was trying to find out exactly what that was - this is it exactly. I hope somebody mods your message up.

I'd love to have an all client-side version of this built into Mozilla Mail, without having to run any proxies or server-side stuff. In other words, simple enough for 'Joe User' to be able to check a couple of boxes and for it to 'just work'.

Such a technique should eliminate 99% of all UCE, which is my goal. Since my chief complaint about Spam is wasted time (not necessarily bandwidth, though my ISP might disagree), this should meet my needs.

DOH: block TABLES in e-mail

[Micah]

GAAAAA that sure came out wrong! Slashdot apparently dropped my inclusion of the HTML [table] tag in the text and subject. That's what I meant, NOT all HTML e-mail!

Re:DOH: block TABLES in e-mail

[Darby]

Slashdot apparently dropped my inclusion of the HTML [table] tag in the text and subject. That's what I meant, NOT all HTML e-mail!

Only a couple of spams make it to my inbox, and only a few legit mails go to my trash. (I do a quick scan before I empty it).
I have one mail filter that drops anything containing html.

YMMV, but it works pretty well for me.

Stunning Revelation!

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Wow! I just realized that Mozilla hasn't crashed on me for at least 6 months!

I know it's off-topic, but it just goes to show you how much Mozilla rules these days.

graspee

Wasteful, but perhaps necessary

[DrEspenA]

While client-side filtering wastes bandwidth, it deal s with the personalization problem of spam - the fact that despite our agreement on what constitutes spam here in /., others may actually like "cute" poems or being invited to Gold Card member events from Amex or other crap.

I use Mailwasher, which "washes" email based on downloading the headers from the mail server and filtering them using a number of approaches at once: Blacklisting, language checking (I think, at least if you preview it), filters that you set up yourself, and a learning over time of what you have done. It bounces the spam with a fake "no such user" message and can also operate in the background. And best of all: I allows me to filter out spam for all email accounts on my web site at once.

However, it is still susceptible to faked subject lines and mail addresses etc., it still requires that I check its actions (though I have only seen two false positives so far, and they were not on my personal email account but on someone else's (and therefore not based on my criteria).

The key to killling spam is to kill the economics - and to do that, we must have integrated filtering based on each user's preferences, done as a natural activity over time, using all the anti-spam weapons in our arsenal. While I agree that bandwidth waste is a problem, it is temporary, bandwidth is cheap compared to user time, and if everyone starts to filter based on the content and because it is an integrated part of the mail package, we will get rid of this thing.

So Kudos to Mozilla, and I sure hope that the next rel of Netscape (7.0 is built on Mozilla 1.1) will make spam filtering integral and natural. If everyone filters, the economic rationale for spam disappears. So make filtering easy....

I want this in Evolution...

[Anonymous Coward]

please.

Re:didn't k5 already run a story on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jägermeister? Nasty stuff! I used to drink it all the time but had to quit. I kept waking up next to fat women.

Re:102 Features IE doesn't have - one that OL has

[Anonymous Coward]

SPELL CHECK - get to work fellas.

Server-side filtering

[scarhill]

The big problem with bayesian server-side filtering (as opposed to rule-based tools like SpamAssassin) is that baysian filtering requires a UI. The user must classify email as spam/not-spam to provide fodder for the filter. Having that UI in the mail client is the right thing to do. It would be nice if there were some protocol that the client could use to communicate that info to a server-side filter, but AFAIK no such protocol exists.

So client-side seems like the right place for bayesian filtering right now.

Bayesian Shmaseian

[Tablizer]

I have been kicking a different approach to spam management.

It would involve an editable look-up list of suspect spam words (like "viagra" and "win") with a weighting factor for each (negatives also allowed for important stuff). The message review list/screen would rank and sort new messages by estimated spamness. Also, the review screen would show breif excerps (about 100 characters) of the content containing the highest-ranking spam words in context with the spam words hilighted.

Rather than explicitly delete the spam, it goes away *by itself*. Each message is given a lifetime inversely proportional to its spam ranking. A viagra message may be given a few weeks while a "borderline" message may be given say 6 months. (There is no Boolean threashold in this setup.)

If you don't feel like reviewing tons of spam a given day, then ignore the low ranking stuff (near the bottom of the list). Further, you don't have to "open" each message to get a taste of its content because of the context feature (above).

One can change the "lifetime" of a given message if they want.

I might use some RAD tools like Python and FoxPro to whip out a prototype one of these days.

Only if...

[GundyRage]

... Mozilla could hear the muttering under my breath to guess spam "... mur murr piece of crap, frickin', good for nuthin' home loan offers ... mur murr ... worthless, murmer ... Damn-it! No more herbs to make me bigger..."

Re:Arms Race-add-ons.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have Bayesian filters, and there doesn't appear to be an easy way to add them.

That's the beauty of Bayesian filters...

[Jack_Frost]

It's based on the spam that *you* receive. You train it on the messages that you actually receive, based on what you think counts as spam. I'm totally enamored with Popfile (a stand alone Bayesian mail proxy). It's just about bulletproof now after one week of training.

popfile's creators response to the ms patent...

[zonker]

if you are curious as to one view of the patent situation you might find this interesting...

popfile has a windows version

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Windows version of POPFile out now and is only getting better.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious!

[Mustang Matt]

A feature request has been filed:
Mozilla feature request

(bugtracker sure is slow today!)

My Bayesian Adventures

[unorthod0x]

After collecting 87 megs worth of spam and a similar amount of non-spam I decided to implement the so-called 'Bayesian' method of spam filtering by way of popfile - it's a pretty slick concept; Perl code that acts as a POP3 server on your own machine - simply drop your collected spam and non-spam in to the appropriate bucket, have popfile go through them and create its indices and set up your mail client to connect to 127.0.0.1 with your username being 'my.pop.server:loginname'.

I know I've got a particularily difficult task for this filtering technique; I get an awful lot of spam that comes in every day (~100 messages per 24 hour period), some of it I actually want (I run an underground music site, and in some cases I subscribe to opt-in lists that result in something that looks like spam), the rest I could care less about.

My results have been decent for the most part; 100% of my spam ends up in my Spam folder, however there is a handful of messages that I wish to keep that end up there as well.. For the most part they are the above-mentioned 'borderline' pieces of spam (which I have been careful to put aside and have indexed by popfile anyway), I can only hope that more time and samples will yield better results. I was however surprised to find that some of the e-mails I was getting from friends were falling in to the Spam mailbox anyway; after taking a closer look, I can see why, they use an awful lot of otherwise unmentionable words - but my suspicion that I haven't gotten enough of these 'good-emails-with-bad-words' to make the filtering truly effective.

Nonetheless, it is nice to have all of my spams seemingly guaranteed to drop in to my "Spam" folder, but my usual task of manually filtering messages that made it past my existing filters in to my Spam folder has been replaced with a different (albeit quicker) task; taking messages out of my spam folder and putting them where they really belong.

Bottom-line: I still have to visually scan through my mail for legitimate messages amongst the thicket of items informing me about the exciting exploits of women at the farm, wonderful business opportunities from Nigeria and suggestions that I should buy Viagra by the boatload.. all this despite having collected a well organized and rather large collection of spam/non-spam mails. I'll stick with it for a while as I'd like to try it out and give it a proper chance, but I suspect that if you're in a similar situation then you should be prepared to tough it out..

Re:My Bayesian Adventures

[DirkDaring]

Email lists should all come from the same place. Setup a mail account for that email list. Block all mail except from that address.

Problem solved?

Dirk

An alternative method

[orangepeel]

Depending on your spam-related needs, another effective method of not transmitting a, "hey, I just read that piece of spam you sent me" message is to click on the little plug-and-socket icon at the bottom right corner of the Mozilla window. That will put you in "Work Offline" mode. Once you've done that, you can handle spammy messages with more security. Any links to images in the email that go back to the evil spammer's website will be ignored.

Just click on the plug-and-socket icon when you're finished checking out possible spam in order to resume normal Mozilla operations.

Spam 'em back

[dazedNconfuzed]

I want to see a Mozilla feature button which when pressed:
1. stores the spam sender's address
2. forwards the spam to all stored spammer addresses

Give 'em a taste of their own medicine. Get enough people doing this, and each spam site should get melted down.

No subject.

[jvance]

So what is your reason? That might help with the answer.

How about just putting a single space in your subject?

Slashdot wouldn't accept this without a subject. here's the error message:

Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)

A weird technique

[swb]

You could merge the measuring portion of the Bayesian filter into imapd.

A special imap folder called "spam" would exist. Messages fed into this folder would be used to compute a filter database. After computing the filter database, the spam messages would be deleted leaving a single message behind representing the Bayesian filter database.

When fetching messages, this filter database would be checked by imapd as it fetched messages; matches would be automatically fed back to the spam folder, where they'd improve the filter, non-matches would show up in your inbox as expected.

No special client software required.

You could even have special virtual folders called "Inbox-Unfiltered" that would give an unfiltered view, a "Spam" folder that gave a spam-only view, as well as options not to delete spam moved to the spam folder autoamatically for review for false-positives.

I can only Hope

[Herkum01]

That it does not accidently delete my email which reads,

STOP, THIS IS NOT SPAM, IT IS VALID BUSINESS OPPURTUNITY!

I would hate to lose all those business oppurtunities.

Re:Am I the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, it is ridiculous that it is moded up to 5. It is not safe to read /. at work anymore.

Mean time to failure

[NighthawkFoo]

Crashed every hour? Heck, I remember when the mean time to failure for Mozilla reached an hour! That was a major accomplishment!

Mutt has the feature you want

[autechre]

As usual :)

From my configuration file:

set sort="threads"
set sort_aux="date-received"

What this does is to thread all replies to a message, Usenet style. There are commands to break apart (for people who send a message to a mailing list by replying to a random other message) and join together (for people with bad email clients) threads.

The sort_aux tells Mutt "OK, once you've threaded everything, sort the the messages by using the date received of the top level message in each thread." If you're one of those lunatics that doesn't like a threaded view, you can just use 'set sort="date-received"' instead.

The only time this is a problem is when your email server goes down and there are a batch of messages from a mailing list that arrive in reverse order. But then, if they all happen to be in the same thread, they're sorted by who's replying to what, so it ends up OK.

I went from Netscape mail to PINE to Mutt, and I don't see any reason to use anything else.

Suggested Feature: "Block Plugins from This Site"

[Maul]

I like the ability to block images from a server, but it'd also be nice to have a similar feature for plugins and Java applets.

A lot of ad companies are now using really annoying flash. Blocking images doesn't stop these.

Ditto...

[sterno]

I love evolution, but Bayesian filtering seems like such a great answer to the spam problem that I'm willing to toss Evolution out in favor of Mozilla (even though I find that in most respects Evolution is a superior mail client).

I use spamassassin right now and it works pretty well, but it does tend to give false positives with enough frequency that I have to still pay occasional attention to the spam. It makes it easier to quickly sort through the junk, but the spam is still wasting my time because of it.

Combine this with open relay databases...

[cardshark2001]

And you'll have a real winner. Probably several other techniques could be combined as well, but back when I wrote a program just to check all of the from IPs in an email to see if any of them were open relays, I got around 80% filtering with very few false positives.

Furthermore, you can assign a pretty good probability number based on what sort of open relay it is (i.e. verified, unverified, spam server, merely unsecured server, etc). If it comes from a spam server, the chances are 100% that it's spam. If it comes from a dialup server, the chances are about 99.9999%. If it comes from an automatically verified open relay, that's merely unsecured, the chances are more like 60%.

The open relay thing really intrigued me because it has NOTHING to do with the message body, and it was my belief at the time that there was no good way to filter based on message content.

However, combine this with bayes, and I'll bet you'll have something grand.

Also, a great feature would be a multi-tiered identifier, so that you could have the 99.999% sure spam filtered into one folder, and the 75% sure spam filtered into another. You'd have to sift through the 75%, but probably could just leave the 99% alone.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet another reason why HTML email is bad!

Yes, people can & DO track you via it. I've both gotten spam that did this & included a bug to catch someone reading it (to figure out who they were--I didn't spam them, however! they were doing Bad Things [TM] and we busted 'em for it)

So yes, DEFINATELY turn off remote images in mail & news in Mozilla. Heck, if I ever read a spam off hotmail (to get the headers & track down the spammer), I turn off images first; since I don't want them to find that my email is valid...

Re:Suggested Feature: "Block Plugins from This Sit

[s1icer]

iCab, a mac web browser, does this very nicely. I haven't had problems with plugins/java/javascript/annoying images/etc in the over 8 months since I started using it.

Re:Won't anyone PLEASE think of the popup advertis

[rapidweather]

By default, Phoenix has popup blocking, and IMHO makes the internet experience better. If popups are so "good", let /. itself start using them...

Mod war warning: Re:DOWNLOAD NEW MOZILLA

[Black Copter Control]

Moderation Totals: Offtopic=2, Troll=3, Funny=8, Overrated=2, Total=15.

Face it. It's funny. Unfortunately it's a kind of funny that generates a knee-jerk reaction in those who don't get the joke . (kinda like 'Buffy'). The troll aspect of this joke is a necessary component of the joke. If you think that the parent is a troll, I'd suggest that you just let it be and presume that you just didn't get the joke. (Either that, or just stop and try to think of it as funny.)

I expected this

[The Raven]

After the articles a couple weeks ago about the utility of bayesian spam filters, I knew it was merely a matter of time before it was put into Mozilla. :-)

I'm not sold on Bayesian

[xtronics]

I think IP blocking at the Boarder router level is the way to go. ISPs blocking or greatly slowed traffic from the ISPs that are clogging everything up with spam, or charged a peering fee based on the amount of SPAM the problem will go away.

Re:I'm not sold on Bayesian

[Foredecker]

Geez xtronic, so just HOW do you identify SPAM in the first place??? How about Bayesian filters.....

and all of those users were forced to pay cash

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Almost all IE users were forced to pay cash money for their browser.

That is not true with Netscape, Mozilla or Opera.

Only at Microsoft are you forced to key products based upon the needs of Microsoft instead of your own.

think about that for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

Your theory is pretty bunk. You are saying that you are glad that 90% of the world uses IE, so it makes it easier to convince people to switch browsers. If enough people switched browsers, then that percentage would drop and the benefit you're describing would be lost.

For some reason I felt like that would be similar to saying people should be fans of the Dallas Cowboys because there are so many empty seats in Texas Stadium.

I know that's a weird analogy. I just miss the good days when the Cowboys were America's Team and we didn't have this Osama Bin Laden air force to contend with. God I miss the nineties.

I use the FREE service.

[Futurepower(R)]

Quite possibly you didn't see the link. I use the FREE service. I've never paid SpamCop a penny. SpamCop builds a database of spammers, and uses the information to convince ISPs that they need to shut off the spammer.

It works, too. SpamCop has sometimes forwarded replies from ISPs that say that they are deeply sorry and the spammer's account was shut off immediately, sometimes within two hours of the time I received the spam. Nothing undeserved can happen; the ISP examines the logs and discovers the truth of SpamCop's computer analysis.

A secret that should be known by everyone: Many spammers put serial numbers in their spam. When SpamCop forwards the spam to the ISP, the ISP sometimes forwards that to the spammer, as evidence. The spammer recognizes to whom the spam with that serial number was sent. Since they don't want to have other accounts shut off, they remove me from their lists -- very quickly.

Note that SpamCop never discloses my email address to the spammer or the spammer's ISP.

Spammers don't want the grief that comes from messing with people like me who will always forward their spam to SpamCop within a few hours.

There are other services like SpamCop. I'd like to hear about user's experiences with them.

If everyone who used Mozilla sent all their spam to services like SpamCop, we would create a rocky road for spammers. There are spam-friendly ISPs, but SpamCop communicates with the internet backbone providers also, who are unlikely to be spam-friendly.

spam back could work, but

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Spamming back could work but many of those emails do not have legit reply email addresses.

However, if you bother to reply to the email until you find a real valid email address then "that" address would be the one to associate with the spam. Then send all your spam you recieve to all of the valid and proven email addresses they use for business purposes.

Of course, your email is likely to end up on more than one list of spammers too.

I'm using Phoenix, but...

[SethJohnson]

I think it's in Mozilla, too. In Phoenix: Preferences>>Advanced Check the box for reject popup windows. Below that is a box which you can add sites which you need to allow popups for. I know it sounds crazy, but some sites you might want to access have some pretty annoying navigation mechanisms that depend on things such as flash or popup windows.

Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

God is still in control, He hasn't left the throne.

Nobody is in control and there is no god. Humans invent religion as it's conducive for the tribes survival, and individuals get selected for their propensity to delude themselves.

Only a few have the mental ability to rid themselves of the DNA yolk and clearly see it as an elaborate self-induced hoax.

The emperor not only has no clothes he doesn't even exist.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid serpent. Go slither back in your hole before the woman clobbers you with the fruit.

Need to view sender and recipient [-1 OT]

[Vainglorious Coward]

For me, this is putting the cart before the horse

Client-side filtering is useful, as far as it goes, but it's much better to do this ju-ju server-side.

I'd rather have seen the effort put in to fixing a basic UI issue - not being able to view sender and/or recipient for any mail folder. The current mechanism only makes sense if you keep all your sent mail in a single folder. It's madness, and it's been this way for years

[grumbles...]

Why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

I use IMAP with Mutt and Pine. 'd' is my friend.

Sorting by date received

[Tsuzuki]

(BTW, another feature that would be great to see in mail clients would be datestamping of the actual time the message was downloaded. Many spammers, and innocent people with misconfigured clocks, send emails with wild dates that are not to be trusted. You can see this in yearly archives of GNU "mailman" mailing lists! Datestamping emails as they are downloaded will also keep mailboxes in order when sorted by date, as newly arrived messages will always be at the bottom, instead of being scattered throughout the inbox. But sorting by spam probability will probably become more popular than sorting by date....)

Outlook Express has this feature. The "View... Columns" option lets you get rid of the Sent column and add a Received column. Click on your Received column, and voila! Sorted! :D

the Graham approach is not the best one.

[anthony_baxter]

The spambayes project has been doing all sorts of research into scoring and related techniques, and we dumped the Graham technique some time ago. It's got too many wierd magic bits of cruft in it. The current code is using chi2 - it has quite scary scary reliability. Certainly much higher than the Graham technique - see the mailing list archives for details of the testing.

There's a couple of applications available using the code now - a neat plugin for outlook users and a POP3 proxy. Mark Hammond suggested that someone who's up on XPCOM might want to look at plugging the spambayes code into Mozilla using PyXPCOM.

Re:goatse.cx UPDATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Now.

Mozilla for Mail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the heck seriously uses a web browser for mail (except for web-based mail systems which are a pain in the a** per se)?

Re: Spellchecker that actually works for Win32

[ayden]

This was posted to the SpellChecker Email List last night (14 Nov 2002). After 2.5 months without a spellchecker for Mozilla on Win32, someone finally released one that works. See http://mozillacafe.org/MozSpell_1.2f_w32.xpi.

Just in case anyone wondered, using the spellchecker from spellchecker.mozdev.org has not worked for Win32 nightly builds, Mozilla 1.1 or 1.2b releases since the end of August. The spellcheck.xpi from Netscape 7 may work for these Linux builds but does not work for Win32.

Woohoo! More feature creep!

[jhylkema]

The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new [features] that people are asking for. --Bill Gates.

Looks like Mozilla has adopted the Microsoft philosophy - don't fix bugs, add features. Only difference is, the Mozilla bloatware is more bug-ridden than /.'s favorite whipping boy, Windows. JWZ was right on about them being "asymptotically" closer to releasing an actual end-user product. He said this a year ago. Mozilla.org was two years behind then and they still haven't released a truly stable end-user product. And what do they do? In true Gatesian fashion, they add more features.

Because this post criticizes an open-source project, it will probably get modded down as a troll. Intellectual honesty on Slashdot? Naaa . .

Re:Suggested Feature: "Block Plugins from This Sit

[MikeBabcock]

Submit a request at bugzilla.mozilla.org ...

Question: Re:Outlook is part of the IE Package

[rcharbon]

Is it possible to install Mozilla Mail (and the address book) without installing the browser?

Coming soon: standalone Mozilla mail

[yerricde]

Is it possible to install Mozilla Mail (and the address book) without installing the browser?

It will be when the Mail component is branched off into its own project, soon after the release of Phoenix 0.5.

Is it possible to install Outlook Express without installing Microsoft Internet Explorer?

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that really do? Does it prevent the display of any images in mail/news, or does it prevent the fetching and displaying of images in html mail? I have friends who send me pictures of their kids and such things from time to time. I wouldn't mind seeing those images. It's just the one's that come in spam that bug me.

I tried Mozilla for reading my mail at home, and I found the inability to turn off the "rendering" of html email to be one of the biggest factors that made me switch to another mail reader. Also, is there some way (that I was just too stupid to notice) to delete messages you KNOW are spam from the summary line WITHOUT opening the message in Mozilla? I couldn't find a way to do that either.

Just to be clear on my first point, I can't think of a single reason that I'd want my mail reader to treat an HTML email as HTML...at least not by default. Perhaps a button to reparse the current message as HTML would be useful for the insanely rare case that you actually would want to see it as HTML, but, personally, I doubt I'd even need that.

Last Post!

[alpg]

We should start referring to processes which run in the background by their
correct technical name... paenguins.
-- Kevin M. Bealer, commenting on the penguin Linux logo

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...