Demon spam filtering

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Demon are now filtering
out most spam at their servers. I've just noticed the difference in
the last couple of days. OK, ADSL means we were downloading it quickly
(good or bad, I don't know!), but now we don't have to trawl through
our inboxes deleting offers of cheap Viagra etc.

Other ISP's please note!

Alan


Don't reply to this e-mail address - messages will be deleted unread. To reply to me take away the news and substitute alanc

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Norris
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Demon are now filtering
>out most spam at their servers. I've just noticed the difference in
>the last couple of days. OK, ADSL means we were downloading it quickly
>(good or bad, I don't know!), but now we don't have to trawl through
>our inboxes deleting offers of cheap Viagra etc.
>
>Other ISP's please note!

Likewise

My incoming spam has dropped from 400 a day to 40, but I still get
multiple copies of the same spam, which Spamkiller knows how to trap.
Perhaps their filters are still learning? [Yes, I know about Brightmail]

--
Topsy

Topsy wrote:

> Likewise
>
> My incoming spam has dropped from 400 a day to 40, but I still get
> multiple copies of the same spam, which Spamkiller knows how to trap.
> Perhaps their filters are still learning? [Yes, I know about Brightmail]

I would rather have the occasional few get through, in preference to
over aggressive filtering loosing real email in the process though.

Again, our spam load is down from 100+/day to often under 5.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article <wHdXb.3252$(E-Mail Removed)>, John Rumm
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Topsy wrote:
>
>> Likewise
>>
>> My incoming spam has dropped from 400 a day to 40, but I still get
>> multiple copies of the same spam, which Spamkiller knows how to trap.
>> Perhaps their filters are still learning? [Yes, I know about Brightmail]
>
>I would rather have the occasional few get through, in preference to
>over aggressive filtering loosing real email in the process though.
>
>Again, our spam load is down from 100+/day to often under 5.
>
>
Same here, but only in the last couple of days, even though Demon
implemented spam filtering on January 29th.
--
Tom

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:37:54 +0000, Alan Norris wrote:

> I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Demon are now filtering out
> most spam at their servers. I've just noticed the difference in the last
> couple of days. OK, ADSL means we were downloading it quickly (good or
> bad, I don't know!), but now we don't have to trawl through our inboxes
> deleting offers of cheap Viagra etc.
>
> Other ISP's please note!
>
> Alan
>
>
> Don't reply to this e-mail address - messages will be deleted unread. To
> reply to me take away the news and substitute alanc

Last year I moaned to Demon about the lack of ISP-based spam filtering.
Their reply was that they couldn't do it for "Legal Reasons", so I left
all my spam behind and joined Plus. We now see that I just received the
usual sort of cop-out reply that pisses off customers.

I should point out that after 7 years as a customer I was also fed up with the
increasingly crap email delivery, slow DNS, poor service by the accounts
department and general downhill slide since Thus took over.

Eric Lee

In message <c0ni4o$18st7i$(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Lee
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Last year I moaned to Demon about the lack of ISP-based spam filtering.
>Their reply was that they couldn't do it for "Legal Reasons", so I left
>all my spam behind and joined Plus. We now see that I just received the
>usual sort of cop-out reply that pisses off customers.

Maybe the term 'legal reasons' was either slightly incorrect, or needed
clarification.
Demon's reasoning was that while they accepted that the spam problem was
bad, the prospect of introducing a filtering system that could lose
legitimate mail was an even worse scenario.
I personally would have put up with the odd mail going astray, but I can
imagine many corporate (and SME) users suing for lost business if it
could be proved that Demon 'deleted' an important order!

Tough call. Lets hope the brightmail system is the compromise we all
want.


--
__________________________________________________
Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
followed by 'net'
__________________________________________________

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:10:38 +0000, Gareth Jones wrote:

> In message <c0ni4o$18st7i$(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Lee
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>Last year I moaned to Demon about the lack of ISP-based spam filtering.
>>Their reply was that they couldn't do it for "Legal Reasons", so I left
>>all my spam behind and joined Plus. We now see that I just received the
>>usual sort of cop-out reply that pisses off customers.
>
> Maybe the term 'legal reasons' was either slightly incorrect, or needed
> clarification.
> Demon's reasoning was that while they accepted that the spam problem was
> bad, the prospect of introducing a filtering system that could lose
> legitimate mail was an even worse scenario. I personally would have put
> up with the odd mail going astray, but I can imagine many corporate (and
> SME) users suing for lost business if it could be proved that Demon
> 'deleted' an important order!
>
> Tough call. Lets hope the brightmail system is the compromise we all
> want.

Except that this was not at all the reason. I was told it would be
illegal for them to examine customers' email and thus (no pun intended)
they couldn't possibly [read: needn't bother] take any anti-spam
measures.

I far prefer an ISP whose correspondance smells of honesty.

Eric Lee

In message <c0o91u$17el40$(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Lee
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Except that this was not at all the reason. I was told it would be
>illegal for them to examine customers' email and thus (no pun intended)
>they couldn't possibly [read: needn't bother] take any anti-spam
>measures.
>
>I far prefer an ISP whose correspondance smells of honesty.

So did you get an official Demon correspondence stating this, or did you
just happen to be speaking to a person in their helpdesk who decided to
make something up?

--
__________________________________________________
Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
followed by 'net'
__________________________________________________