How To Improve SPAM Filtering using Runbox Filters

[carverrn]

In the past month I've had 19611 messages checked by SpamAssassin (SA)

Here is a breakdown of the SA scores:

0.0 - 0.9: 28.5%
1.0 - 1.9: 2.9%
2.0 - 2.9: 4.4%
3.0 - 3.9: 2.7%
4.0 - 4.9: 3.0%
5.0 - 9.9: 13.7%
10.0 - 14.9: 15.1%
15.0 - 19.9: 14.9%
20.0 - 24.9: 9.3%
25.0 - 29.9: 3.8%
30.0 and up: 1.7%


Based on my data, I would feel safe deleting anything with an SA score of 10 or above. *** Your mileage may vary ****

Regards,
Rich

[ltwally]

Originally Posted by carverrn

In the past month I've had 19611 messages checked by SpamAssassin (SA)

Here is a breakdown of the SA scores:

0.0 - 0.9: 28.5%
1.0 - 1.9: 2.9%
2.0 - 2.9: 4.4%
3.0 - 3.9: 2.7%
4.0 - 4.9: 3.0%
5.0 - 9.9: 13.7%
10.0 - 14.9: 15.1%
15.0 - 19.9: 14.9%
20.0 - 24.9: 9.3%
25.0 - 29.9: 3.8%
30.0 and up: 1.7%


Based on my data, I would feel safe deleting anything with an SA score of 10 or above. *** Your mileage may vary ****

Regards,
Rich

That's a pretty cool break-down. That definitely helps.

Thank you.

[slb2]

I thought that whitelist entries, especially domains, were not case-sensitive. I was amazed today to find a message from a very frequent correspondent (my client!) in my Trash. The entire domain from this organization has been whitelisted forever, lower case. But this message happened to be from him on a system that rendered his domain in upper case. In fact, I was able to whitelist the same domain in uppercase without Runbox saying it was already whitelisted.

Very bad if I have to go and type all my whitelisted domains in again in uppercase! Say it isn't so.

[carverrn]

No, they are not case sensitive.

The Whitelist entry form doesn't let me enter the same name twice regardless of case. For example, if I add "@testdomain.com", then try to add "@TESTDOMAIN.com" it says "The specified address is already included in the list".

Quite some time ago domains were entered without the leading "@" but now you have to enter the leading "@" to specify the domain only. If your old entry was without the "@" then it would allow you to enter it again with the "@" regardless of case.

We would need to look at the message headers to determine why it might have been flagged as spam an not whitelisted.

Could you please submit a Support Ticket at https://support.runbox.com and identify the message (date, subject, folder) in your account for us so we can investigate the cause.

Regards,
Rich

[mdembski]

The problem I have is that emails from organizations frequently append the domain name with something else so my whitelisting does not work (they add something list email list to the domain name, and then use something else 3 months later). I am not sure why they do this, but runbox identifies as spam and I have to hunt through all the spam. Unfortunately I've found it easier to just change the email address to a yahoo account which doesn't seem to have this problem. With all the problems I have had over the years getting Runbox to properly identify valid emails from spam, I seldom use Runbox anymore, just spent too much time going through my spam to find valid emails. Even using the "not spam" for the trainable spam filter does not seem to work (or not quickly enough). I like Runbox, have found the performance and up time to better than service like Yahoo or Google, but they are not better at identifying valid emails and keeping them out of the spam (where I get hundreds a day)

[Imajica]

I too have issues with spam as it often finds legit email as being spam. I use t he NOT SPAM function, but it does not seem to work all the time. So i always need to view my email via the web to check the spam box to make sure an email did not go "missing".

[nickywilliam]

That would be great idea i think that could help in us.

[Geir]

A while ago we updated the "Not spam" function to add the sender's address to the whitelist, to guarantee that further messages from that address will not be classified as spam.

Please see this page for more information about whitelisting: http://doc.runbox.com/twiki/bin/view...nder_Whitelist

- Geir

[memzoomvn]

Originally Posted by Daniel S

RFC = Request For Comments
list
These documents set the current and future standards (define the protocols, etc).

RFC2821 (SMTP) states (Section 2.4):

i think so , too , that is my problem

[ezfig]

Originally Posted by Geir

A while ago we updated the "Not spam" function to add the sender's address to the whitelist, to guarantee that further messages from that address will not be classified as spam.

Are there any plans to actually make the 'Not spam' function add the sender's address to the whitelist? This would indeed be a very useful feature. Kind of annoying to have to fish through 60 spam messages to find one or two from frequent correspondents who have previously been flagged as 'not spam' in Runbox.

[emebrs]

Originally Posted by carverrn

I filter a lot of messages based on the domain of mine to which it was sent.

How exactly is this done? I see an option for filtering according to the "to" address. But this doesn't always catch messages sent to a certain domain name.

What is the most effective way to filter messages by domain name?

[dbowdley]

Originally Posted by emebrs

What is the most effective way to filter messages by domain name?

I would use the "Header" option as this will catch the domain wherever it appears in the header. The problem with the "To" filter is that it won't catch emails sent to CC or BCC.

[emebrs]

Originally Posted by dbowdley

I would use the "Header" option

Thanks. I don't quite understand how that works, but I will check the help pages.

[truestone]

At this point, is any of this still relevant? I don't see any X-Spam-like header, nor any header beyond the standard ones, in the source of messages displayed through the web interface or retrieved through an IMAP client.

Is there a secret sauce to seeing those headers, or seeing at all why some messages are quarantined in spam and others aren't?

[tomhab]

How does the Mailing-List filter work? What should I put in the "contains" section?