Spamfighter

Topic

New Reply

Hi…. Is Spamfighter worth having ? …..can it be downloaded free & which is the best site to download it from.
Alternatively, what about Mailwasher ? same three questions please. Regards Dave.

Reply | Quote

Replies

I don’t have either so I’ll leave the question whether it’s worth having to others.

SpamFighter comes in two flavours: the Standard version is free (download from the company site which you show in your screenshot – Download SPAMfighter Free!), and the Pro version that has a few more features costs 25 Euros (currently about 23 pound sterling).

Likewise, MailWasher also comes in two flavours: the standard version is free (download from MailWasher Free), the Pro version costs US$39.95 (currently about 24.50 pound sterling).

Reply | Quote

I don’t have either so I’ll leave the question whether it’s worth having to others.

SpamFighter comes in two flavours: the Standard version is free (download from the company site which you show in your screenshot – Download SPAMfighter Free!), and the Pro version that has a few more features costs 25 Euros (currently about 23 pound sterling).

Likewise, MailWasher also comes in two flavours: the standard version is free (download from MailWasher Free), the Pro version costs US$39.95 (currently about 24.50 pound sterling).

Sorry if this sounds somewhat personal Hans but I am not a little curious to learn that you don’t have either progs. Could it be you have some more sophisticated security moat around your computer? Simply ignore this request if it you deem a little out of bounds. I just thought it would be obvious that an I.T. expert like your good self would have something like the progs mentioned. Kind regards Dave.

Reply | Quote

Hi Dave,

I used to use SpamBayes. You have to train it at first by telling it which incoming mails are spam and which aren’t. Over time it becomes an effective spam filter.

At the moment, I don’t use an anti-spam utility on my PC at all because my ISP (internet provider) has a very efficient spam filter that leaves all spam on the server. It hasn’t let a spam message through for more than a year now. Once every few weeks I log on to the webmail interface and clear the spam folder on the server.

Reply | Quote

Hi Dave,

I used to use SpamBayes. You have to train it at first by telling it which incoming mails are spam and which aren’t. Over time it becomes an effective spam filter.

At the moment, I don’t use an anti-spam utility on my PC at all because my ISP (internet provider) has a very efficient spam filter that leaves all spam on the server. It hasn’t let a spam message through for more than a year now. Once every few weeks I log on to the webmail interface and clear the spam folder on the server.

Many thanks gents for your feed back. regarding “spambayes……..” and the requirement to teach it what is kosher and what is not, I just read a little in the tutorial of Mailwasher and it seems the same principle applies with it. I know Big Al, you said you have the paid for version so you will be able to confirm if that is the case or whether it only applies to the free version. Many thanks again as ever, greatly appreciate the endless assistance I derive from this forum. Cheers Dave.

Reply | Quote

…my ISP (internet provider) has a very efficient spam filter that leaves all spam on the server. It hasn’t let a spam message through for more than a year now.

We need this technology in America.

Reply | Quote

We need this technology in America.

I use 1&1 to host my work and personal domains, and their SPAM filter is pretty  good. Maybe once a month there’s a false positive, and the stuff that does get through is more often than not UCE. I get a daily plaint-text report that lists the sender and subject, which is a lot quicker to scan through than the SPAM folder on their server, which I empty weekly. (There are black- and white-lists which can be added to with a click or two, and the trash is retained for a month, which would be plenty of time to recover a missed genuine email should someone at work complain…)

I’m not necessarily trying to sell them to you, but I would imagine their filters would be equally effective in the US as here

Reply | Quote

I don’t know anything about Spam Fighter but I wouldn’t even think about it because I’ve used MailWasher Pro ever since it “went” Pro and I’m hooked on its value.

I use it as a front-end for Thunderbird and MW does an excellent job.

Reply | Quote

I don’t know anything about Spam Fighter but I wouldn’t even think about it because I’ve used MailWasher Pro ever since it “went” Pro and I’m hooked on its value.

I use it as a front-end for Thunderbird and MW does an excellent job.

+1 here (though I use it with OE and WM on different machines)

If you only have one mail account you should be fine with the free version of Mailwasher. It has some filters built in so it’ll pick up a lot of spam automatically, so quite often all you need to do is tag the senders you consider ‘friends’. This is no more difficult than hitting the ‘+’ key on your keyboard.

The Pro version is needed if you run multiple mail accounts.

I’m a great believer in free software (indeed I have somewhat of an aversion for paying for it), but I willingly paid for Mailwasher Pro.

Reply | Quote

SpamBayes was useful about 5-10 years ago, before spammers got wise to the fact that they could ‘poison’ the tables by sending collections of valid words in spam messages – often content from books and the like. Nowadays, you have to use a range of tools, like:

It’s a never-ending problem, though, because spammers (like virus writers) think of new ideas to fool antispam programs…

BATcher

Plethora means a lot to me.

Reply | Quote

I think my work email address is just on too many lists. To give you a flavor, during September, Postini (external filtering service) refused 11,202 messages addressed to me as blatant spam without even quarantining them. It quarantined 2,211 suspicious messages for review, and sent 1,330 through to my Exchange mailbox. Even a small percentage of false negatives and false positives is a time-consuming hassle with that volume of junk.

Reply | Quote

Ouch! – that’s more than a few!

Reply | Quote