OT- email service provider recommendation

Apologies as this is somewhat off topic, but I was wondering if you have
a better recommendation than fastmail as an email service? I've used
them for several years, and have been very happy, but recently, it seems
I've been getting a lot of spam (a lot of it German language) despite
having my spam settings at the 'aggressive' level. I'd look for a
service which had wap access. Spam is my biggest problem. I don't post
my address, or give my main one out to any company, but as I'm sure you
know, that's no longer a safety feature.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Apologies as this is somewhat off topic, but I was wondering if you have
> a better recommendation than fastmail as an email service? I've used
> them for several years, and have been very happy, but recently, it seems
> I've been getting a lot of spam (a lot of it German language) despite
> having my spam settings at the 'aggressive' level. I'd look for a
> service which had wap access. Spam is my biggest problem. I don't post
> my address, or give my main one out to any company, but as I'm sure you
> know, that's no longer a safety feature.

I just use GoogleMail accounts now. I have a couple I use for web and
newsgroups, which collect most of the Spam. In fact I only get one or
two a week at most actually make it to my computer, Gmail filters the
rest.

I also have one account that is only used for friends and family, and
that never gets any Spam at all.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Andy Hewitt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Apologies as this is somewhat off topic, but I was wondering if you have
> > a better recommendation than fastmail as an email service? I've used
> > them for several years, and have been very happy, but recently, it seems
> > I've been getting a lot of spam (a lot of it German language) despite
> > having my spam settings at the 'aggressive' level. I'd look for a
> > service which had wap access. Spam is my biggest problem. I don't post
> > my address, or give my main one out to any company, but as I'm sure you
> > know, that's no longer a safety feature.
>
> I just use GoogleMail accounts now. I have a couple I use for web and
> newsgroups, which collect most of the Spam. In fact I only get one or
> two a week at most actually make it to my computer, Gmail filters the
> rest.
>
> I also have one account that is only used for friends and family, and
> that never gets any Spam at all.

That isn't really any use to me, I'm afraid. The yahoo address I use
above for this gets hardly any spam, but I don't use it. The main reason
for spam, I suspect, is that my main address has been harvested from
email address books etc. of other users.

The reason I'm looking for an alternative is that I suspect that
fastmail is not blocking spam as well as it used to.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Andy Hewitt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > Apologies as this is somewhat off topic, but I was wondering if you have
> > > a better recommendation than fastmail as an email service? I've used
> > > them for several years, and have been very happy, but recently, it seems
> > > I've been getting a lot of spam (a lot of it German language) despite
> > > having my spam settings at the 'aggressive' level. I'd look for a
> > > service which had wap access. Spam is my biggest problem. I don't post
> > > my address, or give my main one out to any company, but as I'm sure you
> > > know, that's no longer a safety feature.
> >
> > I just use GoogleMail accounts now. I have a couple I use for web and
> > newsgroups, which collect most of the Spam. In fact I only get one or
> > two a week at most actually make it to my computer, Gmail filters the
> > rest.
> >
> > I also have one account that is only used for friends and family, and
> > that never gets any Spam at all.
>
> That isn't really any use to me, I'm afraid. The yahoo address I use
> above for this gets hardly any spam, but I don't use it. The main reason
> for spam, I suspect, is that my main address has been harvested from
> email address books etc. of other users.
>
> The reason I'm looking for an alternative is that I suspect that
> fastmail is not blocking spam as well as it used to.

I'm also immensely frustrated that there is still no really effective
means of dealing with spam. Unless someone can recommend a provider that
can...

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:27:27 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

> I'm also immensely frustrated that there is still no really effective
> means of dealing with spam. Unless someone can recommend a provider that
> can...

The way I do it is ruin my own mail server. I use the Zen (nothing to do
with the ISP) Spamhaus blacklist. I also have a few filters to address
persistent problems. That gets rid of the majority, then I feed it
through a Bayesian filter.

My mail client sees half a dozen spam emails in a bad week.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:27:27 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> > I'm also immensely frustrated that there is still no really effective
> > means of dealing with spam. Unless someone can recommend a provider that
> > can...
>
> The way I do it is ruin my own mail server. I use the Zen (nothing to do
> with the ISP) Spamhaus blacklist. I also have a few filters to address
> persistent problems. That gets rid of the majority, then I feed it
> through a Bayesian filter.
>
> My mail client sees half a dozen spam emails in a bad week.

I was using Spamcop for a while, which uses a similar filtering system,
but I found the Gmail one works better.

There's isn't a way to stop all spam, there are just too many ways to
get it through. You can only minimise what gets through.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

"Andy Hewitt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1hy8dez.j3l4ny2l9r8rN%wildrover.andy@googlema il.com...
> Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:27:27 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> > I'm also immensely frustrated that there is still no really effective
>> > means of dealing with spam. Unless someone can recommend a provider
>> > that
>> > can...
>>
>> The way I do it is ruin my own mail server. I use the Zen (nothing to do
>> with the ISP) Spamhaus blacklist. I also have a few filters to address
>> persistent problems. That gets rid of the majority, then I feed it
>> through a Bayesian filter.
>>
>> My mail client sees half a dozen spam emails in a bad week.
>
> I was using Spamcop for a while, which uses a similar filtering system,
> but I found the Gmail one works better.
>
> There's isn't a way to stop all spam, there are just too many ways to
> get it through. You can only minimise what gets through.

Do you find you get many false positives - innocent email that is wrongly
catgegorised as spam and therefore deleted uneen by the recipient?

I find that my ISP's spam blocker and Norton Anti Spam do a pretty good job
at labelling spam by adding "SPAM" to the subject so an Outlook Express rule
can direct it to another mail folder, but I get quite a few false positives:
enough to mean that I have to manually check each email before deleting it.
Also Norton finds some emails which are half-and-half: it changes the
subject line but doesn't move them to the antispam folder.

Are server-based spam blockers better - because you don't want *any*
legitimate emails disappearing without the user seeing them, even if this
means that a few spam messages get through.

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:17:50 UTC, "Mortimer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Andy Hewitt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:1hy8dez.j3l4ny2l9r8rN%wildrover.andy@googlema il.com...
> > Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:27:27 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (David Horne, _the_
> >> chancellor (*)) wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm also immensely frustrated that there is still no really effective
> >> > means of dealing with spam. Unless someone can recommend a provider
> >> > that
> >> > can...
> >>
> >> The way I do it is run my own mail server. I use the Zen (nothing to do
> >> with the ISP) Spamhaus blacklist. I also have a few filters to address
> >> persistent problems. That gets rid of the majority, then I feed it
> >> through a Bayesian filter.
> >>
> >> My mail client sees half a dozen spam emails in a bad week.
> >
> > I was using Spamcop for a while, which uses a similar filtering system,
> > but I found the Gmail one works better.
> >
> > There's isn't a way to stop all spam, there are just too many ways to
> > get it through. You can only minimise what gets through.
>
> Do you find you get many false positives - innocent email that is wrongly
> catgegorised as spam and therefore deleted uneen by the recipient?

I get about one a month. Most of the real stuff is stopped at connection
time by the blacklist, etc. The stuff identified by the Bayesian filter
goes into a holding area which I check every three or four days. The
check takes a couple of minutes, and false positives are weeded out then
(of course, they are used to train the filter).

> Are server-based spam blockers better - because you don't want *any*
> legitimate emails disappearing without the user seeing them, even if this
> means that a few spam messages get through.

As I said, the main thing is to block the connections from real spam
machines. This might occasionally block a real system, but only if an
ISP gets blacklisted. And the sender will generally get a non-delivery
report in that case, so it isn't a silent failure.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Mortimer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> My mail client sees half a dozen spam emails in a bad week.
> >
> > I was using Spamcop for a while, which uses a similar filtering system,
> > but I found the Gmail one works better.
> >
> > There's isn't a way to stop all spam, there are just too many ways to
> > get it through. You can only minimise what gets through.
>
> Do you find you get many false positives - innocent email that is wrongly
> catgegorised as spam and therefore deleted uneen by the recipient?

Only very occasionally, and then only with new senders (or somebody
using a really silly subject line).

> I find that my ISP's spam blocker and Norton Anti Spam do a pretty good job
> at labelling spam by adding "SPAM" to the subject so an Outlook Express rule
> can direct it to another mail folder, but I get quite a few false positives:
> enough to mean that I have to manually check each email before deleting it.
> Also Norton finds some emails which are half-and-half: it changes the
> subject line but doesn't move them to the antispam folder.
>
> Are server-based spam blockers better - because you don't want *any*
> legitimate emails disappearing without the user seeing them, even if this
> means that a few spam messages get through.

I find the Gmail spam filters to be good. I have been training mine for
about 18 months now, and I can't remember the last false one, although
they do get caught occasionally. The easiest way with their system is to
just bung that sender into the address book.

Whatever spam system you choose, you will have to work at it a bit if
you want the best from it. Part will be choosing a good service to start
with, part will be being sensible with the use of your address, and part
will be patience in training the filters.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>