Currently using Cloudmark's Spam blocker plugin for Outlook Express (on XP
32 pro) which has no 64-bit version.

I want something that is highly effective

*Must integrate with Outlook Express*

Also would be nice if it (a) puts spam in a folder so I can check before
deleting; and (b) allows me to quickly/easily report a msg it didn't catch
as spam. One nice thing about Cloudmark is that it communicates with a
central server and shares what it learned amongst all users.

Thanks for any suggestions you all can give!

--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-

64 bit software is sparse at this time. I don't know of any Spam Blocks
written for X64 systems yet. Sorry.
--
Jim Pickering, MVP, Outlook Express
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pr...8-1171988A62D6
Please deliver feedback to the newsgroup, so that others can be helped.

Customers in the U.S. and Canada can receive technical support from
Microsoft Product Support Services at 1-866-PCSAFETY. There is no charge for
support calls that are associated with security updates



"Scotter" wrote in message
...
Currently using Cloudmark's Spam blocker plugin for Outlook Express (on XP
32 pro) which has no 64-bit version.

I want something that is highly effective

*Must integrate with Outlook Express*

Also would be nice if it (a) puts spam in a folder so I can check before
deleting; and (b) allows me to quickly/easily report a msg it didn't catch
as spam. One nice thing about Cloudmark is that it communicates with a
central server and shares what it learned amongst all users.

Thanks for any suggestions you all can give!

--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-

"Scotter" wrote in message
...
Currently using Cloudmark's Spam blocker plugin for Outlook Express
(on XP 32 pro) which has no 64-bit version.

I want something that is highly effective

*Must integrate with Outlook Express*

Also would be nice if it (a) puts spam in a folder so I can check
before
deleting; and (b) allows me to quickly/easily report a msg it didn't
catch
as spam. One nice thing about Cloudmark is that it communicates with a
central server and shares what it learned amongst all users.


So why won't a 32-bit app work for you? I highly doubt that any extra
speed would be afforded by a 64-bit app that has to interrogate the
packets going to your e-mail client (which is probably also still a
32-bit app, especially since you mention Outlook Express). Since you
are running Windows XP Pro, which is 32-bit, you can't run 64-bit
software on it, anyway.

Please explain how any program can report a mail that it didn't catch
was spam (i.e., a false negative). If the program didn't know it was
spam, how would it then know it was spam to report that it missed it?
If it knows it is spam, it would catch it and not have to report a miss
to you.

Outlook Express doesn't support plug-ins as does Outlook. Of those
programs that "integrate" with OE, they look to run as "wrappers". That
is not an effective method of detecting spam and makes the spam filter a
one-product solution which would have a severely restricted number of
users for that product. I use SpamPal which runs as a local proxy which
interrogates your e-mail traffic. It commits no action against the
spam. All it does is tag the spam and then you create whatever rules in
your e-mail program that you want for however you want to handle the
spam. SpamPal's main method of detecting spam are DNSBLs (DNS
blacklists = IPs of known spam sources). However, you can add the
Bayesian plug-in to help guess which mails are spam that may not get
detected by DNSBLs (and the SpamPal Bayesian filter can also learn from
other spam detection methods to help update its database). So the
Bayesian filter would find the spam that the DNSBLs missed. It also has
a UserLogfile plug-in that keeps a plain-text version of spam-tagged
mails so you can recover in case of a false positive (a good mail marked
as spam).

For SpamPal, I have my rules first look for SpamPal tagging them using
the Bayesian filter (which means the spam wasn't in the blacklists).
Those I move (marked as read so the folder doesn't get bolded to show
new mails are there) into the Junk folder which is configured with
auto-archive enabled to permanently delete them after 2 days. Bayes is
a guessing scheme and it will have false positives. The next rule
checks if SpamPal's HTLM-Modify filter detected spam. It scores the
HTML-formatted mails on their spamminess and if they use any tricks plus
it can remove some HTML tricks. Those also go into the Junk folder,
too. The 3rd rule just check if SpamPal tagged the mail as spam and, if
so, permanently deletes it (and why I use the UserLogfile plug-in to
keep a plain-text copy in case of false positives - which do occur). Be
careful as to which blacklists you enable in SpamPal. Some are
aggressive, and some are totally inappropriate for personal e-mails
(they rank the spamminess of a domain and do NOT actually identify
specific spam sources).

Have you checked using the webmail interface to your e-mail account if
your e-mail provider includes a spam filtering option? If so, enable
it. Even if they are "loose" (lots of spam leaks past), it is still
better to have some server-side spam filtering than none at all. If
their spam filtering is too tight (causes too many false positives) then
you might consider disabling it so you can use a customizable
client-side solution, like SpamPal. You can use server-side spam
filtering and SpamPal (client-side) together, too.

I did use (now called just Desktop) SpamNet from Cloudmark when it was
free, or so Cloudmark professed it was free. When Cloudmark had gained
enough experience, enlarged their spam ID database, and tweaked their
system enough, all of sudden all of the free accounts got reclassified
as beta test accounts when Cloudmark pulled the rug out and went
commercial with their service. They never divulged to the users of the
"free" accounts that they were actually beta testers and that Cloudmark
had its eye on generating revenue from the spam problem. I wasn't
interested in paying Cloudmark and I didn't like the way they lied to
their users about their intent for their service. I liked the concept
of a voting scheme but, in practice, it turned out it wouldn't catch a
lot of the spanking brand new spam (because not enough users got it yet
to vote on it, so your voting was to help someone other than yourself).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

You may want to look again at the subject line.
I'll make it more clear:
*Right now* I'm running XP32.
*Soon* I'll run XP64 with the 64-bit version of Outlook Express... UNLESS
you are telling me the XP64 Outlook Express is 32-bit?

More clarification: I don't care if the spam-catcher is 32-bit or 64-bit. I
just assumed that it would need to be 64-bit or at least compatible with
whatever Outlook Express runs on XP64.

Finally, I think you are splitting hairs with the whole "integration" or
"plug in" thing.
More clarification: I'm currently using Cloudmark and I want something that
works like it does.
The way Cloudmark plugs in (or whatever you want to call it) to Outlook
Express is the way I want the next spam-filter to work. Since you have
yourself used Cloudmark, I'm sure you can now understand what I'm looking
for.

Regarding webmail and my provider, I'm the provider. I run the mail server
and I don't want (for reasons I'd rather not waste time explaining) to run
spam filtering software on that box.
--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-
"Vanguard" wrote in message
...

So why won't a 32-bit app work for you? I highly doubt that any extra
speed would be afforded by a 64-bit app that has to interrogate the
packets going to your e-mail client (which is probably also still a 32-bit
app, especially since you mention Outlook Express). Since you are running
Windows XP Pro, which is 32-bit, you can't run 64-bit software on it,
anyway.

Please explain how any program can report a mail that it didn't catch was
spam (i.e., a false negative). If the program didn't know it was spam,
how would it then know it was spam to report that it missed it? If it
knows it is spam, it would catch it and not have to report a miss to you.

Outlook Express doesn't support plug-ins as does Outlook. Of those
programs that "integrate" with OE, they look to run as "wrappers". That
is not an effective method of detecting spam and makes the spam filter a
one-product solution which would have a severely restricted number of
users for that product. I use SpamPal which runs as a local proxy which
interrogates your e-mail traffic. It commits no action against the spam.
All it does is tag the spam and then you create whatever rules in your
e-mail program that you want for however you want to handle the spam.
SpamPal's main method of detecting spam are DNSBLs (DNS blacklists = IPs
of known spam sources). However, you can add the Bayesian plug-in to help
guess which mails are spam that may not get detected by DNSBLs (and the
SpamPal Bayesian filter can also learn from other spam detection methods
to help update its database). So the Bayesian filter would find the spam
that the DNSBLs missed. It also has a UserLogfile plug-in that keeps a
plain-text version of spam-tagged mails so you can recover in case of a
false positive (a good mail marked as spam).

For SpamPal, I have my rules first look for SpamPal tagging them using the
Bayesian filter (which means the spam wasn't in the blacklists). Those I
move (marked as read so the folder doesn't get bolded to show new mails
are there) into the Junk folder which is configured with auto-archive
enabled to permanently delete them after 2 days. Bayes is a guessing
scheme and it will have false positives. The next rule checks if
SpamPal's HTLM-Modify filter detected spam. It scores the HTML-formatted
mails on their spamminess and if they use any tricks plus it can remove
some HTML tricks. Those also go into the Junk folder, too. The 3rd rule
just check if SpamPal tagged the mail as spam and, if so, permanently
deletes it (and why I use the UserLogfile plug-in to keep a plain-text
copy in case of false positives - which do occur). Be careful as to which
blacklists you enable in SpamPal. Some are aggressive, and some are
totally inappropriate for personal e-mails (they rank the spamminess of a
domain and do NOT actually identify specific spam sources).

Have you checked using the webmail interface to your e-mail account if
your e-mail provider includes a spam filtering option? If so, enable it.
Even if they are "loose" (lots of spam leaks past), it is still better to
have some server-side spam filtering than none at all. If their spam
filtering is too tight (causes too many false positives) then you might
consider disabling it so you can use a customizable client-side solution,
like SpamPal. You can use server-side spam filtering and SpamPal
(client-side) together, too.

I did use (now called just Desktop) SpamNet from Cloudmark when it was
free, or so Cloudmark professed it was free. When Cloudmark had gained
enough experience, enlarged their spam ID database, and tweaked their
system enough, all of sudden all of the free accounts got reclassified as
beta test accounts when Cloudmark pulled the rug out and went commercial
with their service. They never divulged to the users of the "free"
accounts that they were actually beta testers and that Cloudmark had its
eye on generating revenue from the spam problem. I wasn't interested in
paying Cloudmark and I didn't like the way they lied to their users about
their intent for their service. I liked the concept of a voting scheme
but, in practice, it turned out it wouldn't catch a lot of the spanking
brand new spam (because not enough users got it yet to vote on it, so your
voting was to help someone other than yourself).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

The problem with most programs (I don't know the one you reference) that
attempt to "integrate" with OE is that they wind up messing up the message
store. see www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3 Its better in the long run to use
a 3rd party program at the moment to access the server independently of OE
and handle spam that way, rather than attempt to hack into OE (which has no
"proper" programming model) and wind up messing up the users' message
stores.

steve

"Scotter" wrote in message
...
You may want to look again at the subject line.
I'll make it more clear:
*Right now* I'm running XP32.
*Soon* I'll run XP64 with the 64-bit version of Outlook Express... UNLESS
you are telling me the XP64 Outlook Express is 32-bit?

More clarification: I don't care if the spam-catcher is 32-bit or 64-bit.
I just assumed that it would need to be 64-bit or at least compatible with
whatever Outlook Express runs on XP64.

Finally, I think you are splitting hairs with the whole "integration" or
"plug in" thing.
More clarification: I'm currently using Cloudmark and I want something
that works like it does.
The way Cloudmark plugs in (or whatever you want to call it) to Outlook
Express is the way I want the next spam-filter to work. Since you have
yourself used Cloudmark, I'm sure you can now understand what I'm looking
for.

Regarding webmail and my provider, I'm the provider. I run the mail server
and I don't want (for reasons I'd rather not waste time explaining) to run
spam filtering software on that box.
--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-
"Vanguard" wrote in message
...

So why won't a 32-bit app work for you? I highly doubt that any extra
speed would be afforded by a 64-bit app that has to interrogate the
packets going to your e-mail client (which is probably also still a
32-bit app, especially since you mention Outlook Express). Since you are
running Windows XP Pro, which is 32-bit, you can't run 64-bit software on
it, anyway.

Please explain how any program can report a mail that it didn't catch was
spam (i.e., a false negative). If the program didn't know it was spam,
how would it then know it was spam to report that it missed it? If it
knows it is spam, it would catch it and not have to report a miss to you.

Outlook Express doesn't support plug-ins as does Outlook. Of those
programs that "integrate" with OE, they look to run as "wrappers". That
is not an effective method of detecting spam and makes the spam filter a
one-product solution which would have a severely restricted number of
users for that product. I use SpamPal which runs as a local proxy which
interrogates your e-mail traffic. It commits no action against the spam.
All it does is tag the spam and then you create whatever rules in your
e-mail program that you want for however you want to handle the spam.
SpamPal's main method of detecting spam are DNSBLs (DNS blacklists = IPs
of known spam sources). However, you can add the Bayesian plug-in to
help guess which mails are spam that may not get detected by DNSBLs (and
the SpamPal Bayesian filter can also learn from other spam detection
methods to help update its database). So the Bayesian filter would find
the spam that the DNSBLs missed. It also has a UserLogfile plug-in that
keeps a plain-text version of spam-tagged mails so you can recover in
case of a false positive (a good mail marked as spam).

For SpamPal, I have my rules first look for SpamPal tagging them using
the Bayesian filter (which means the spam wasn't in the blacklists).
Those I move (marked as read so the folder doesn't get bolded to show new
mails are there) into the Junk folder which is configured with
auto-archive enabled to permanently delete them after 2 days. Bayes is a
guessing scheme and it will have false positives. The next rule checks
if SpamPal's HTLM-Modify filter detected spam. It scores the
HTML-formatted mails on their spamminess and if they use any tricks plus
it can remove some HTML tricks. Those also go into the Junk folder, too.
The 3rd rule just check if SpamPal tagged the mail as spam and, if so,
permanently deletes it (and why I use the UserLogfile plug-in to keep a
plain-text copy in case of false positives - which do occur). Be careful
as to which blacklists you enable in SpamPal. Some are aggressive, and
some are totally inappropriate for personal e-mails (they rank the
spamminess of a domain and do NOT actually identify specific spam
sources).

Have you checked using the webmail interface to your e-mail account if
your e-mail provider includes a spam filtering option? If so, enable it.
Even if they are "loose" (lots of spam leaks past), it is still better to
have some server-side spam filtering than none at all. If their spam
filtering is too tight (causes too many false positives) then you might
consider disabling it so you can use a customizable client-side solution,
like SpamPal. You can use server-side spam filtering and SpamPal
(client-side) together, too.

I did use (now called just Desktop) SpamNet from Cloudmark when it was
free, or so Cloudmark professed it was free. When Cloudmark had gained
enough experience, enlarged their spam ID database, and tweaked their
system enough, all of sudden all of the free accounts got reclassified as
beta test accounts when Cloudmark pulled the rug out and went commercial
with their service. They never divulged to the users of the "free"
accounts that they were actually beta testers and that Cloudmark had its
eye on generating revenue from the spam problem. I wasn't interested in
paying Cloudmark and I didn't like the way they lied to their users about
their intent for their service. I liked the concept of a voting scheme
but, in practice, it turned out it wouldn't catch a lot of the spanking
brand new spam (because not enough users got it yet to vote on it, so
your voting was to help someone other than yourself).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

I think the way Cloudmark works is in a way that has little or no danger of
messing with the message store. It merely marks messages it finds suspicious
and an OE rule moves those suspicious messages to a folder called "spam". I
read the link you referenced and I see why you are saying what you do,
though; the way they say OE's message store structure has a "propensity for
destruction".

I do wonder just how "fragile" Outlook Express's message store is. I've used
it for many years on various OS's. I'm not sure but I think I used it on
Win98. I know I used it on 2000. Also on NT, 2000 server, and 2003 server.
Anyway, on many different computers, too, and I've never had a message store
get corrupted or anything. Maybe I've just been lucky.

--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-
"Steve Cochran" wrote in message
...
The problem with most programs (I don't know the one you reference) that
attempt to "integrate" with OE is that they wind up messing up the message
store. see www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3 Its better in the long run to
use a 3rd party program at the moment to access the server independently
of OE and handle spam that way, rather than attempt to hack into OE (which
has no "proper" programming model) and wind up messing up the users'
message stores.

steve

"Scotter" wrote in message
...
You may want to look again at the subject line.
I'll make it more clear:
*Right now* I'm running XP32.
*Soon* I'll run XP64 with the 64-bit version of Outlook Express... UNLESS
you are telling me the XP64 Outlook Express is 32-bit?

More clarification: I don't care if the spam-catcher is 32-bit or 64-bit.
I just assumed that it would need to be 64-bit or at least compatible
with whatever Outlook Express runs on XP64.

Finally, I think you are splitting hairs with the whole "integration" or
"plug in" thing.
More clarification: I'm currently using Cloudmark and I want something
that works like it does.
The way Cloudmark plugs in (or whatever you want to call it) to Outlook
Express is the way I want the next spam-filter to work. Since you have
yourself used Cloudmark, I'm sure you can now understand what I'm looking
for.

Regarding webmail and my provider, I'm the provider. I run the mail
server and I don't want (for reasons I'd rather not waste time
explaining) to run spam filtering software on that box.
--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-
"Vanguard" wrote in message
...

So why won't a 32-bit app work for you? I highly doubt that any extra
speed would be afforded by a 64-bit app that has to interrogate the
packets going to your e-mail client (which is probably also still a
32-bit app, especially since you mention Outlook Express). Since you
are running Windows XP Pro, which is 32-bit, you can't run 64-bit
software on it, anyway.

Please explain how any program can report a mail that it didn't catch
was spam (i.e., a false negative). If the program didn't know it was
spam, how would it then know it was spam to report that it missed it? If
it knows it is spam, it would catch it and not have to report a miss to
you.

Outlook Express doesn't support plug-ins as does Outlook. Of those
programs that "integrate" with OE, they look to run as "wrappers". That
is not an effective method of detecting spam and makes the spam filter a
one-product solution which would have a severely restricted number of
users for that product. I use SpamPal which runs as a local proxy which
interrogates your e-mail traffic. It commits no action against the
spam. All it does is tag the spam and then you create whatever rules in
your e-mail program that you want for however you want to handle the
spam. SpamPal's main method of detecting spam are DNSBLs (DNS blacklists
= IPs of known spam sources). However, you can add the Bayesian plug-in
to help guess which mails are spam that may not get detected by DNSBLs
(and the SpamPal Bayesian filter can also learn from other spam
detection methods to help update its database). So the Bayesian filter
would find the spam that the DNSBLs missed. It also has a UserLogfile
plug-in that keeps a plain-text version of spam-tagged mails so you can
recover in case of a false positive (a good mail marked as spam).

For SpamPal, I have my rules first look for SpamPal tagging them using
the Bayesian filter (which means the spam wasn't in the blacklists).
Those I move (marked as read so the folder doesn't get bolded to show
new mails are there) into the Junk folder which is configured with
auto-archive enabled to permanently delete them after 2 days. Bayes is
a guessing scheme and it will have false positives. The next rule
checks if SpamPal's HTLM-Modify filter detected spam. It scores the
HTML-formatted mails on their spamminess and if they use any tricks plus
it can remove some HTML tricks. Those also go into the Junk folder,
too. The 3rd rule just check if SpamPal tagged the mail as spam and, if
so, permanently deletes it (and why I use the UserLogfile plug-in to
keep a plain-text copy in case of false positives - which do occur). Be
careful as to which blacklists you enable in SpamPal. Some are
aggressive, and some are totally inappropriate for personal e-mails
(they rank the spamminess of a domain and do NOT actually identify
specific spam sources).

Have you checked using the webmail interface to your e-mail account if
your e-mail provider includes a spam filtering option? If so, enable
it. Even if they are "loose" (lots of spam leaks past), it is still
better to have some server-side spam filtering than none at all. If
their spam filtering is too tight (causes too many false positives) then
you might consider disabling it so you can use a customizable
client-side solution, like SpamPal. You can use server-side spam
filtering and SpamPal (client-side) together, too.

I did use (now called just Desktop) SpamNet from Cloudmark when it was
free, or so Cloudmark professed it was free. When Cloudmark had gained
enough experience, enlarged their spam ID database, and tweaked their
system enough, all of sudden all of the free accounts got reclassified
as beta test accounts when Cloudmark pulled the rug out and went
commercial with their service. They never divulged to the users of the
"free" accounts that they were actually beta testers and that Cloudmark
had its eye on generating revenue from the spam problem. I wasn't
interested in paying Cloudmark and I didn't like the way they lied to
their users about their intent for their service. I liked the concept
of a voting scheme but, in practice, it turned out it wouldn't catch a
lot of the spanking brand new spam (because not enough users got it yet
to vote on it, so your voting was to help someone other than yourself).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

"Scotter" wrote in message
...
You may want to look again at the subject line.
I'll make it more clear:
*Right now* I'm running XP32.
*Soon* I'll run XP64 with the 64-bit version of Outlook Express...
UNLESS you are telling me the XP64 Outlook Express is 32-bit?


You should ask over in the microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general group
as to whether or not Outlook Express got recompiled into a 64-bit
application. However, that doesn't prevent a 32-bit application running
as a proxy, like SpamPal, from working with other e-mail programs since
obviously OE is just sending packets to whatever server to which it
connects and hasn't a concept if that server is running as a 32-bit app
or even what platform it runs on (the mail server to which you connect
is probably not running Windows).

If you use some wrapper or some app that somehow "integrates" with OE,
and if OE is 64-bit, then, yes, you will probably run into problems in
trying to use a 32-bit wrapper spam filter with OE since, as I've heard,
64-bit apps cannot make calls to 32-bit DLLs. But since SpamPal runs as
a proxy, the only thing passing between SpamPal and OE are the packets,
the same packets (with some headers added to the data for the spam
tagging) that you would also be getting from the mail server (i.e., you
are communicating via TCP rather than some API).

Under 32-bit versions of Windows, WoW (Windows on Windows) is used to
translate system API calls from 16-bit applications to the 32-bit API.
Under 64-bit versions of Windows, WoW64 is used to translate calls from
32-bit apps to the 64-bit API (yeah, I know, WoW went from low-to-high
for bit width while WoW64 goes high-to-low ... go figure Microsoft to
make it backwards). There is no way Microsoft could afford to drop all
its current customers and require all apps to be 64-bit, especially for
an interim version of Windows. While drivers run in the privileged
kernel layer (so you'll need to make sure there are 64-bit drivers for
all your hardware - have fun with that), that is NOT a requirement for
applications.

So what critical applications do you use that have 64-bit versions that
would perform significantly better or faster under Windows 64-bit than
do their 32-bit cousins under the older 32-bit Windows (and without any
changes in hardware)? Most likely all your critical apps are still just
32-bit, and they will run slower under the compatibility mode (WoW64).
You may end up disappointed with the move to Windows 64 if you don't
really have the need for that OS and the availability of 64-bit apps to
take advantage of the 64-bit OS and 64-bit hardware.

Thanks for the advice, Vanguard.
To answer your question, the #1 reason I want to switch to XP64 is so I can
use more than 4gig RAM. I do some things that are RAM intensive such as (but
not limited to):
(a) Manipulating large 3D scenes with many objects;
(b) Photoshopping large 300dpi image files; and
(c) Editing large videos


--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-
"Vanguard" wrote in message
...
"Scotter" wrote in message
...
You may want to look again at the subject line.
I'll make it more clear:
*Right now* I'm running XP32.
*Soon* I'll run XP64 with the 64-bit version of Outlook Express... UNLESS
you are telling me the XP64 Outlook Express is 32-bit?


You should ask over in the microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general group as
to whether or not Outlook Express got recompiled into a 64-bit
application. However, that doesn't prevent a 32-bit application running
as a proxy, like SpamPal, from working with other e-mail programs since
obviously OE is just sending packets to whatever server to which it
connects and hasn't a concept if that server is running as a 32-bit app or
even what platform it runs on (the mail server to which you connect is
probably not running Windows).

If you use some wrapper or some app that somehow "integrates" with OE, and
if OE is 64-bit, then, yes, you will probably run into problems in trying
to use a 32-bit wrapper spam filter with OE since, as I've heard, 64-bit
apps cannot make calls to 32-bit DLLs. But since SpamPal runs as a proxy,
the only thing passing between SpamPal and OE are the packets, the same
packets (with some headers added to the data for the spam tagging) that
you would also be getting from the mail server (i.e., you are
communicating via TCP rather than some API).

Under 32-bit versions of Windows, WoW (Windows on Windows) is used to
translate system API calls from 16-bit applications to the 32-bit API.
Under 64-bit versions of Windows, WoW64 is used to translate calls from
32-bit apps to the 64-bit API (yeah, I know, WoW went from low-to-high for
bit width while WoW64 goes high-to-low ... go figure Microsoft to make it
backwards). There is no way Microsoft could afford to drop all its
current customers and require all apps to be 64-bit, especially for an
interim version of Windows. While drivers run in the privileged kernel
layer (so you'll need to make sure there are 64-bit drivers for all your
hardware - have fun with that), that is NOT a requirement for
applications.

So what critical applications do you use that have 64-bit versions that
would perform significantly better or faster under Windows 64-bit than do
their 32-bit cousins under the older 32-bit Windows (and without any
changes in hardware)? Most likely all your critical apps are still just
32-bit, and they will run slower under the compatibility mode (WoW64). You
may end up disappointed with the move to Windows 64 if you don't really
have the need for that OS and the availability of 64-bit apps to take
advantage of the 64-bit OS and 64-bit hardware.

I think you were lucky. MANY people have this problem daily.

steve

"Scotter" wrote in message
...
I think the way Cloudmark works is in a way that has little or no danger of
messing with the message store. It merely marks messages it finds
suspicious and an OE rule moves those suspicious messages to a folder
called "spam". I read the link you referenced and I see why you are saying
what you do, though; the way they say OE's message store structure has a
"propensity for destruction".

I do wonder just how "fragile" Outlook Express's message store is. I've
used it for many years on various OS's. I'm not sure but I think I used it
on Win98. I know I used it on 2000. Also on NT, 2000 server, and 2003
server. Anyway, on many different computers, too, and I've never had a
message store get corrupted or anything. Maybe I've just been lucky.

--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-
"Steve Cochran" wrote in message
...
The problem with most programs (I don't know the one you reference) that
attempt to "integrate" with OE is that they wind up messing up the
message store. see www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3 Its better in the long
run to use a 3rd party program at the moment to access the server
independently of OE and handle spam that way, rather than attempt to hack
into OE (which has no "proper" programming model) and wind up messing up
the users' message stores.

steve

"Scotter" wrote in message
...
You may want to look again at the subject line.
I'll make it more clear:
*Right now* I'm running XP32.
*Soon* I'll run XP64 with the 64-bit version of Outlook Express...
UNLESS you are telling me the XP64 Outlook Express is 32-bit?

More clarification: I don't care if the spam-catcher is 32-bit or
64-bit. I just assumed that it would need to be 64-bit or at least
compatible with whatever Outlook Express runs on XP64.

Finally, I think you are splitting hairs with the whole "integration" or
"plug in" thing.
More clarification: I'm currently using Cloudmark and I want something
that works like it does.
The way Cloudmark plugs in (or whatever you want to call it) to Outlook
Express is the way I want the next spam-filter to work. Since you have
yourself used Cloudmark, I'm sure you can now understand what I'm
looking for.

Regarding webmail and my provider, I'm the provider. I run the mail
server and I don't want (for reasons I'd rather not waste time
explaining) to run spam filtering software on that box.
--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
4 gig Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig Hitachi SATA 300
160 gig Seagate SATA 150
Dual Dell 24" wide aspect LCDs
550W Antec power supply
X-Fi Platinum Soundblaster
-
"Vanguard" wrote in message
...

So why won't a 32-bit app work for you? I highly doubt that any extra
speed would be afforded by a 64-bit app that has to interrogate the
packets going to your e-mail client (which is probably also still a
32-bit app, especially since you mention Outlook Express). Since you
are running Windows XP Pro, which is 32-bit, you can't run 64-bit
software on it, anyway.

Please explain how any program can report a mail that it didn't catch
was spam (i.e., a false negative). If the program didn't know it was
spam, how would it then know it was spam to report that it missed it?
If it knows it is spam, it would catch it and not have to report a miss
to you.

Outlook Express doesn't support plug-ins as does Outlook. Of those
programs that "integrate" with OE, they look to run as "wrappers".
That is not an effective method of detecting spam and makes the spam
filter a one-product solution which would have a severely restricted
number of users for that product. I use SpamPal which runs as a local
proxy which interrogates your e-mail traffic. It commits no action
against the spam. All it does is tag the spam and then you create
whatever rules in your e-mail program that you want for however you
want to handle the spam. SpamPal's main method of detecting spam are
DNSBLs (DNS blacklists = IPs of known spam sources). However, you can
add the Bayesian plug-in to help guess which mails are spam that may
not get detected by DNSBLs (and the SpamPal Bayesian filter can also
learn from other spam detection methods to help update its database).
So the Bayesian filter would find the spam that the DNSBLs missed. It
also has a UserLogfile plug-in that keeps a plain-text version of
spam-tagged mails so you can recover in case of a false positive (a
good mail marked as spam).

For SpamPal, I have my rules first look for SpamPal tagging them using
the Bayesian filter (which means the spam wasn't in the blacklists).
Those I move (marked as read so the folder doesn't get bolded to show
new mails are there) into the Junk folder which is configured with
auto-archive enabled to permanently delete them after 2 days. Bayes is
a guessing scheme and it will have false positives. The next rule
checks if SpamPal's HTLM-Modify filter detected spam. It scores the
HTML-formatted mails on their spamminess and if they use any tricks
plus it can remove some HTML tricks. Those also go into the Junk
folder, too. The 3rd rule just check if SpamPal tagged the mail as spam
and, if so, permanently deletes it (and why I use the UserLogfile
plug-in to keep a plain-text copy in case of false positives - which do
occur). Be careful as to which blacklists you enable in SpamPal. Some
are aggressive, and some are totally inappropriate for personal e-mails
(they rank the spamminess of a domain and do NOT actually identify
specific spam sources).

Have you checked using the webmail interface to your e-mail account if
your e-mail provider includes a spam filtering option? If so, enable
it. Even if they are "loose" (lots of spam leaks past), it is still
better to have some server-side spam filtering than none at all. If
their spam filtering is too tight (causes too many false positives)
then you might consider disabling it so you can use a customizable
client-side solution, like SpamPal. You can use server-side spam
filtering and SpamPal (client-side) together, too.

I did use (now called just Desktop) SpamNet from Cloudmark when it was
free, or so Cloudmark professed it was free. When Cloudmark had gained
enough experience, enlarged their spam ID database, and tweaked their
system enough, all of sudden all of the free accounts got reclassified
as beta test accounts when Cloudmark pulled the rug out and went
commercial with their service. They never divulged to the users of the
"free" accounts that they were actually beta testers and that Cloudmark
had its eye on generating revenue from the spam problem. I wasn't
interested in paying Cloudmark and I didn't like the way they lied to
their users about their intent for their service. I liked the concept
of a voting scheme but, in practice, it turned out it wouldn't catch a
lot of the spanking brand new spam (because not enough users got it yet
to vote on it, so your voting was to help someone other than yourself).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________