Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 56975	2005-04-20 00:55:00	Xtra spam filter	user (1404)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
346908	2005-04-20 00:55:00	Just wondering if anyone else is noticing an increase in the spam creeping through the spam filter with Xtra over the last week or so. I emailed them about it but they missed the point and waffled on about settings wrt the filter function. Also, I get spam through which has been ID'ed by the Yahoo spam filter with the title containing [spam] in it so you can identify it easily and deal with it. Xtra does not seem to be able to catch some of these. If another filter can catch them, why can't Xtra's do so also. I think it is becoming increasingly useless or not being updated often enough. Anyone else's thoughts? Steve	user (1404)
346909	2005-04-20 01:05:00	Spam filters are difficult to maintain and update. Spammers are constantly looking for ways to get around them so filters are eternally trying to catch up. My thoughts are that it's free, quit yer whining. They don't have to provide a spam filter, spam is not their fault. Efficiency of filtering will change from day to day, build a bridge and get over it.	ninja (1671)
346910	2005-04-20 02:24:00	Spam filters are difficult to maintain and update. Spammers are constantly looking for ways to get around them so filters are eternally trying to catch up. My thoughts are that it's free, quit yer whining. They don't have to provide a spam filter, spam is not their fault. Efficiency of filtering will change from day to day, build a bridge and get over it. You seem to miss my point with your personal attack. Of course I know that spammers are looking for new ways to overcome filters. One of my points was that the Yahoo filter seemed to have little problem IDing the spam which Xtra cannot. No, they don't have to provide a spam filter but when they advertise it as part of the attraction to sign up for them, then it should do the job. If you can't add anything to the topic, then don't bother to reply.	user (1404)
346911	2005-04-20 03:42:00	No nonsense response. I havn't noticed an increase in missed spam with xtra	bonzo29 (2348)
346912	2005-04-20 04:48:00	You seem to miss my point with your personal attack. Of course I know that spammers are looking for new ways to overcome filters. One of my points was that the Yahoo filter seemed to have little problem IDing the spam which Xtra cannot. No, they don't have to provide a spam filter but when they advertise it as part of the attraction to sign up for them, then it should do the job. If you can't add anything to the topic, then don't bother to reply. Well said User :thumbs:	Cicero (40)
346913	2005-04-20 05:28:00	Xtra has always seemed to have a poor spam filter.	pctek (84)
346914	2005-04-20 05:34:00	Just get something like spampal and ban/blacklist the whole domain . Like I do, bet u wont get so many spams then :cool: Sounds like Ihugs . Even tho I've turned theirs off I still get email saying its not spam (when the few spam do get thru, which get blacklisted after I see it), lol its useless .	Speedy Gonzales (78)
346915	2005-04-20 06:18:00	Also, I get spam through which has been ID'ed by the Yahoo spam filter with the title containing [spam] in it so you can identify it easily and deal with it. No doubt you would have heard of a little word called 'spoofing'? Just because the address or whatever is identified by Yahoo, that doesn't mean it is the actual address. Sometime in the future; Yahoo may identify your email address as the source of the spam; now if Xtra were to act on that, you would undoubtedly lose your account. Thats possibly why Xtra is not acting on the information. False addresses	Myth (110)
346916	2005-04-20 06:48:00	No doubt you would have heard of a little word called 'spoofing'? Just because the address or whatever is identified by Yahoo, that doesn't mean it is the actual address. Sometime in the future; Yahoo may identify your email address as the source of the spam; now if Xtra were to act on that, you would undoubtedly lose your account. Thats possibly why Xtra is not acting on the information. False addresses I don't think you understand what I wrote. I am the creator of some egroups which are now run by Yahoo. Because the egroup creator recieves emails from spammers, they must first pass through the Yahoo spam filter. Yahoo identifies them as spam and inserts [spam] into the header of the email so they can be dealt with by the recipient. I am not the source of the spam ito sender address, there is no mention of spoofing my address. Your points are irrelevant to the query I originally posed. The Xtra filter still acts on the original spam email with the only difference that of the [spam] added to the header, the content and sender address the same. Yahoo would appear to have a better filter than Xtra currently. When Xtra first brought in the filter, spams dropped to almost a handful each week. Now they are on the increase again the past few weeks. The content and headers are enough for me to delete them without further investigation. If they are that obvious, then the filter should capture most of them beforehand. Perhaps it is simply a bad few weeks for spam? HTH.	user (1404)
346917	2005-04-20 08:37:00	You seem to miss my point with your personal attack. Of course I know that spammers are looking for new ways to overcome filters. One of my points was that the Yahoo filter seemed to have little problem IDing the spam which Xtra cannot. No, they don't have to provide a spam filter but when they advertise it as part of the attraction to sign up for them, then it should do the job. If you can't add anything to the topic, then don't bother to reply.What I added was a valid contribution no one else had discussed. It also wasn't personal, if you elected to take it that way thats your problem. Yahoo = Huge Xtra = Tiny in the grand scheme of things Huge = more resources to spend on the phenomenal task of managing spam Tiny = less resources to spend on the phenomenal task of managing spam Spam filtering is a huge job, it requires huge amounts of hardware and a lot of input. It's not a service that you profit off, it costs a crapload to provide so investing more time in tweaking it every 5 minutes because someone found a new way around it is hardly likely to be high priority. Why don't you compare the amount getting through to the amount getting caught. It's probably just a surge in the amount of spam arriving, hence more gets through. I do this for a living, it ain't a science. And just imagine how much you'd whine when the filter was too restrictive and started catching valid e-mails. ISP's are damned if they do and damned if they don't.	ninja (1671)
1 2 3