Author Topic: SPAMPAL replacement (Read 21086 times)

Rover · « **on:** January 11, 2006, 07:06 PM »

I've had spampal running on my system for about a year now. While it works very well at detecting spam, it HOGS my system. I have a pretty spiffy P4 3Ghz w/ 2G of RAM. Everytime spampal is used (checking mail) my system grinds to a near halt. Web pages time out, response is sluggish. I've had enough...

So what's a decent spam filtering tool I can use? I'm currently using Becky2 Internet mail and I really don't want to change. Something that fits in as a proxy (like spampal) will work just fine.

Thanks
Chris

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2006, 07:48 PM »

POPfile is an excellent filtering tool that can easily be taught to handle spam. It learns remarkably quickly (even though there is no spam database with it) what your preferences are and is incredibly accurate at predicting how you categorize email. Since it isn't strictly desgined to handle spam it is also incredibly flexible in filtering all sorts of email content as it arrives.

The interface is slightly clunky to some as the settings are accessed via a web page interface but it is incredibly powerful and updated regularly. If you can access webpages from within you email client then the POPfile interface can be a single click away. Note that this is only for setting up the system, once it is running properly you don't need to use that interface as you email client rules are used to filter the tagged messages automatically using the categories assigned by POPfile.

See http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ for full details.

If you are using Microsoft Outlook (2000, XP or 2003) as your email client there is also a free plugin called Outclass which gives you an easy to use toolbar to access all the popfile functions. If you use this be sure you read the Outclass installation instructions before installing anything as it requires POPfile to be installed but not configured in any way (and not even loaded). See http://www.vargonsoft.com/Outclass/

kimmchii · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2006, 08:12 PM »

i just use gmail, it has a very good spam filter.

mrainey · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2006, 08:19 PM »

I've used SpamPal for a long time, and haven't experienced the slowdowns you describe.

pand0ra · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2006, 04:04 PM »

I am using Incredimail and was wondering which spam filter to use with this, i have to buy the junk mail filter extra to buying incredimail..

so please can someone help me out

Innuendo · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2006, 06:32 PM »

Two things...

SpamPal is very, very light on resources. If your system is slowing to a crawl then you have a rogue plugin running rampant on your system or something else. It's definitely not SpamPal.

Second, IncrediMail is the Devil's work. Honest. Things may have changed, but previous versions of this piece of crapware had spyware built in that reported your program usage and even your emails back to the author & the author even had a provision in his EULA that anything put into an email that is sent by IncrediMail becomes their property to use as they see fit.

Edvard · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2006, 06:58 PM »

I use K9. Works good, very configurable, light and stable. And I love this error message...

masu · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2006, 02:13 PM »

I also use K9

Darwin · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2006, 12:09 AM »

I use SpamBayes and am very pleased with it... Highly configureable, light on resources and easy to use.

url: http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/

Rover · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2006, 09:19 PM »

Update:

So I've been running Spambayes for a week or so. It seem OK, except that there is a warning on the status page that keeps telling my Spambayes works better with a near 50/50 mix of spam and ham (non-spam).

If only half of my mail was spam, I might forget the whole thing. I need a spam filter because about 95% of my mail is spam. $:-\$ (register a domain or two and you can enjoy the same.)

Anyway, I'm going to switch to Thunderbird. It has built in spam filters and it's pretty darn fast.

It also meets some of my email requirements... multiple email addresses (7) with an identity and server settings for each. No I'm not a pervert, I have a couple of business relationships, personal email, etc.

I'll try to let everyone know how it all turns out.

cranky · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2006, 10:58 PM »

If you use outlook I strongly recommend the Disruptor OL plugin:

http://disruptor.de

Darwin · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2006, 09:16 AM »

Rover - I wouldn't worry too much about the SpamBayes warning. It simply reflects the way in which SpamBayes trains itself. Over a period of regular usage the warning goes away. I started out in the other "direction", i.e. about 80% ham and 20% spam and after about two weeks that message disappeared (even though the ratio reported on the info page seemed to be about the same). SpamBayes just needs some time work out what you consider to be ham - right now it looks to it like everything (just about) is spam.

Rover · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2006, 08:35 PM »

OK, I'll comment on this.

1) It doesn't bug me to see a google ad in the thread... too much.
2) It doesn't really apply to my query... I don't use outlook.
3) If DC can make a few bucks this way, let it ride.

$0.02

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2006, 05:01 AM »

As a charter member you have the choice to display the Google ads. Hit the 'Profile' button and you can set the probability of seeing ads on the site.

Google ads don't make money for the site unless you click on them so if you don't want to see the ads or are unlikely to click on any you may as well disable them altogether.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2006, 05:43 AM »

@Carol: Thanks for the information, i thought dc would receive money even if people didn't click the ads...

mouser · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:25 AM »

no one should leave the ads on just to help the site make money if they don't "enjoy" seeing them - as carol said unless you click on them occasionally we make no money, and there is no point just clicking ads like mad trying to help us make money - google has weird rules and weird systems designed to detect this kind of thing and punish sites when people do.

by default as soon as you activate a charter account your preferences should change to show ads only 5% of the time at random, which you should just change to 0 if/when you are sure you don't want to see them (yes believe it or not some people like seeing the ads in the forum posts - they are often content relevant on longer threads, and amusingly off topic on the shorter newer ones).

Edvard · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:07 AM »

Anti-Spam tools reviewed quite in-depth here:
http://spamotomy.com/tools.php
I read the review on the spam filter I use, K9,and it was surprisingly dismal. However, this review is from 2003 and K9 now has User-Specified Black/White lists (although this is manual, not automatic, which would be REALLY nice..) and DNS Blacklisting. While I agree that it should have some sort of function to automatically maintain black/white lists, I don't think all the features are necessary, such as Challenge/Response filtering (annoying, and in a few cases has got folks mistakenly listed at Spamcop), Vendor-Specified white/black lists (what if I WANT to buy \/!@gr@?) and Digital Signatures (which rolls out the carpet for Trusted Delivery, another M$-defined "standard")
Yet another 2 cents.
wow, if all the 2 centses being given here were real, you wouldn't need google ads!

Edvard · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2006, 05:03 PM »

OK I've changed horses...

After months of using K9 I have found it to be VERY reliable. Less than 50 mis-classifications from over 5000 emails. That's good. But for some diablolical reason, it would make my CPU eat dirt every time an email came through. Every time my mouse slowed to a crawl, or text didn't show up in my typing, I knew I was receiving an email.

I think it has something to do with the fact that most of my "good" email contains large image attachments (I work at a large-format reprographics place), and I think it is trying to scan the attachment as well as the message. I am going to contact the author at keir.net and see if there is any way to turn off scanning attachments and until then, POPfile is working very nicely. Thanks for the tip Carol!

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #18 on:** October 03, 2006, 07:42 AM »

Glad to be of assistance - glad you find it useful.

I really need to get to grips with POPfile - the Outclass interface for Outlook is pretty much dead in terms of development and has recently caused me some problems (probably because I have a recent version of POPfile installed). I think I need to ditch Outclass and use POPfile properly ...

app103 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 04, 2006, 09:16 AM »

Are you sure it's your antispam that is slowing your system down and not your antivirus scanning attachments?

Edvard · « **Reply #20 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:23 AM »

I use Avira Personal and it only scans when I open an attachment, not as it is downloading. Any AV that bogged my system like that every time I received an email would get the same scrutiny and smackdown as K9 did. I would open the task manager when the slowdowns occurred and the culprit was ALWAYS K9, slurping down 50-80% of cpu and eating up 80 megs or so when it was processing

. I discovered some tweaks on the K9 website, maybe I'll try again. Right now POPfile is working a little TOO well...

Josh · « **Reply #21 on:** October 04, 2006, 06:43 PM »

May I suggest spamato?

http://www.spamato.net

use Spamatoxy, its a universal filter that works with any email client and it works very well.

JavaJones · « **Reply #22 on:** October 06, 2006, 09:02 PM »

A bit off-topic, but Edvard, what are you doing exchanging large graphics files through email? Email is about the worst Internet file transfer system that exists. There are a lot of easy (and secure, if necessary) alternatives. Granted email is a tad easier than even the easiest of the alternatives, generally speaking, but it also bloats file size about 30% and the simple fact is that it was never meant to be used as a file transfer system. That means that every tool you're using with your email or that ever looks at your email, from the client itself to your antivirus and antispam software, has to deal with unusually large, burdensome emails. Sure they shouldn't bog down when dealing with that stuff, but you're also using the system in a way it wasn't intended for so it's not really a surprise to me that performance isn't optimal.

There are at least 3 major counts against email as a file transfer system:
Larger file size - about 30% bigger on average
Inability to resume downloads in most cases
Email system not designed for attachments, negatively affects any program that interacts with it

Given that I think it makes sense to look for alternatives, as a separate issue from your spam filtering of course. You might find it helps with that too though.

I don't know what your specific needs are, whether there is any possibility for a central FTP repository or anything, but I definitely suggest looking into alternatives for file transfer. Something like HFS may work very well, depending on your needs (I love it personally, and I do use it in similar situations).

Sorry I've nothing to contribute on the original topic though.

- Oshyan

Edvard · « **Reply #23 on:** October 09, 2006, 11:10 AM »

I understand your viewpoint, JJ but the simple fact is I have 200+ clients (many of whom are just now discovering the miracle of email) sending me houseplans to print in email attachments anywhere from a few kilobytes for a single pdf or plot file to 10-15 megs for a zipped plan set and they aren't about to change. They are too familiar with it. Our main office deals with large format full-color plots which can easily get up to hundreds of megs and we use FTP storage for that.
HFS sounds really cool, but our ISP provides the ftp space and the interface tools for it and we don't have an in-house IT person to twiddle about with all that (and the bosses aren't about to hire one...)

Josh, thanks for the suggestion, Spamato looks really nice but it needs Java 1.5 and that won't install on this ancient NT4.0 Workstation.

JavaJones · « **Reply #24 on:** October 09, 2006, 05:09 PM »

I understand Edvard, and your reasoning makes perfect sense. I just wish there were an equally easy but more efficient email-like alternative for sending files! Does anyone know of anything? I should probably split this into its own topic.

I'll go do that now, hehe.

- Oshyan