|
Runbox Forum Everything related to Runbox should go here: suggestions, comments, complaints, questions, technical issues, etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
17 Nov 2004, 01:35 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 58
|
Not too happy with new Spam filter
Ok, I have been using the new SPAM feature for about 3 weeks now. I went from getting about 40-50 spam emails per day to zero. But the problem is, all my emails go into my SPAM folder. So instead of looking in my inbox for my emails, I have to look in my SPAM folder for my emails, which is more of a pain. Maybe I am missing these features, but if there not there, they need to be!
1. Add all people in address book to whitelist button, as opposed to adding them one by one. 2. When a good email gets classified as SPAM, add a button to put that address in your whitelist! What good does that "not spam" button do if it only moves the email to your inbox. I was really excited about this new SPAM filter, but heck I could have wrote a script that said put EVERYTHING in my junk folder unlesss I say otherwise. |
17 Nov 2004, 01:39 AM | #2 |
Master of the @
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Breda, NL
Posts: 1,070
|
Hmm..
funny. SPAM-filtering works very, VERY smooth for me. What are your settings??? |
17 Nov 2004, 01:51 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 58
|
Setting?
The only thing I see is "Use trainable filter" which i have checked. I would not call it trainable, since I am the one that has to do ALL the work. I dont understand why when I click on a email and the "Not Spam" button, it cant remember that address is not spam. I am just really disapointed in this new "trainable filter", and am probably going to turn it off soon. |
17 Nov 2004, 02:19 AM | #4 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,938
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
Jericko,
I think you should give it some more time. Your filter is far from "mature", and although your accumulated accuracy is currently 89.9% it will get a lot better. We will most likely implement those extra buttons you mentioned. - Geir |
17 Nov 2004, 04:52 AM | #5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 58
|
Quote:
|
|
17 Nov 2004, 05:44 AM | #6 | |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,606
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
Quote:
My description may not be 100% accurate but I thinks it's close enough to explain what's going on. Regards Rich |
|
17 Nov 2004, 06:21 AM | #7 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
Quote:
Tore |
||
17 Nov 2004, 07:34 AM | #8 | |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,606
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
Quote:
Regards, Rich |
|
17 Nov 2004, 09:18 AM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
|
I have to be counted as one who is extremely pleased with the new DSPAM filter. I do agree that one nice feature to be added for usefulness would be an "Add to Whitelist" button.
Regards, Craig |
17 Nov 2004, 10:54 AM | #10 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,606
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
My Runbox Toolbar 2 has an "Add To Whitelist"
Rich |
17 Nov 2004, 02:38 PM | #11 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
You're right it's not a separate whitelist, it's not even a "list" at all - only a token that is looked at specially when classifying. The effect, however, is that of a conventional auto-whitelist. Tore |
|
17 Nov 2004, 09:03 PM | #12 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,938
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
In addition to Dspam's autowhitelist, SpamAssassin has its own whitelist that you can manage from the Manager:Filter section.
When Dspam is activated, a filter rule is created in your Exim filter file. It distinguishes "spam" from "ham" by looking at the SA and Dspam headers, and saves messages considered to be "spam" to your Junk folder -- unless the sender's address is found in your SA whitelist. Although the inner workings of our SA/Dspam setup might sound complicated, it is (supposed to be) easy to use: Keep training your filter, SA-whitelist specific addresses if you need to, and don't create any spam-related filters preceding SA/Dspam -- unless you know what you're doing. - Geir |
18 Nov 2004, 03:59 AM | #13 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Posts: 92
|
Has the new spam filter been released from beta yet? I don't see the options for it on my account and would love to get going with the new filter.
|
18 Nov 2004, 04:43 AM | #14 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,606
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
As I understand it they are not officially rolling it out yet until they resolve some hardware issues (i.e. get some new servers installed). The servers running the spam filters are apparently the same ones running some of the other services like POP3. Since the spam filtering can get quite intensive when lots of emails are pouring in it can effect performance of the other services. At least this is my understanding of the situation.
However, they will gladly turn on DSPAM for anyone requesting it. Just PM Geir or Liz with your account name and they'll switch it on for your account. Regards, Rich |
18 Nov 2004, 05:45 AM | #15 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,938
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
We have resolved most of the scalability issues with Dspam.
Regular spam scanning by SpamAssassin is currently distributed among the various MX servers. Dspam runs on a dedicated server (currently Laika, which used to be the main database server) that should be powerful enough, as the Dspam setup is much more efficient now. Until recently we have had to store all Dspam-scanned messages temporarily in the Dspam database (in addition to the extracted tokens), because the data passed to Dspam via the "Report Spam/Not Spam" functions wasn't exactly identical to the data Dspam initially scanned upon receiving the message (both Dspam, SA, etc add headers during message delivery). By utilizing more sophisticated configuration available in the new Dspam version combined with some changes in internal message delivery, we no longer need to store those messages in the Dspam DB (in addition to the user's Maildir) -- which greatly reduces database size and server load. There are still some minor tasks to complete before Dspam is ready for official launch, but as there are no foreseen problems we expect it to be ready quite soon. Until then, as Rich said, drop us a message if you'd like to test it. - Geir |