Okay, so nobody likes spam, but it seems like nobody is doing anything to
stop it, other than blocking a sender or the domain - and that's not working
very well.

Why not let the individual consumer/user do the deed?

Add a feature in OE that will give the USER the option to block the bloody
ISP who
is allowing spam or porn to be sent through it's system. Under where OE has
"Block Sender," add one that reads, "BLOCK ISP."

When the USER gets a spam e-mail, he or she clicks on the "new" option and
with that one click of a key be told who, and where, the ISP is and...

1. How many spam e-mails the user has received via that ISP so he/she can
take
whatever action deemed necessary and...
2. The user would then be given the option of blocking everything coming
from that ISP for a period of 10 days, 30 days, 6 months or permanently - but
let the user make that decision and...
3. The user could, if he/she wants to, send the ISP e-notification that any
and everything coming from their system is blocked and how long the "time
out" period is, and the reason(s).

Spammers change names and domain names constantly, and they employ a million
tricks, but they all have to have an ISP who has to remain "still" - and I
want to get him in the cross-hairs!

One person blocking out everything coming from an ISP won't get their
attention, but when 100,000+ people do, they'll have to decide to cut loose
the spammer or risk lose legit customers.

It may be worth a shot. If you agree, please reply and if enough of us do,
maybe, just maybe, MS will consider it!

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:08:30 -0800, Bill wrote:

Okay, so nobody likes spam, but it seems like nobody is doing anything to
stop it, other than blocking a sender or the domain - and that's not working
very well.

Actually, there are people doing something, and it is working. For me,
anyway. But, you have to be willing to learn how to run your own MTA to do
this. Most people aren't.

Why not let the individual consumer/user do the deed?

Add a feature in OE that will give the USER the option to block the bloody
ISP who
is allowing spam or porn to be sent through it's system. Under where OE has
"Block Sender," add one that reads, "BLOCK ISP."

This can't be done at the client level. By the time MS Outlook Express is
pulling email from the POP3 or IMAP server, the message has been received.
You can't block it, now; all you can do is divert suspect email to a
special folder, or delete it. Diverting is the better choice, just in case
you get a false positive.

When the USER gets a spam e-mail, he or she clicks on the "new" option and
with that one click of a key be told who, and where, the ISP is and...

1. How many spam e-mails the user has received via that ISP so he/she can
take
whatever action deemed necessary and...

Parsing the message headers to identify the suspect ISP is a daunting task.
Not something which can be easily deployed in a free, end-user email
client.

2. The user would then be given the option of blocking everything coming
from that ISP for a period of 10 days, 30 days, 6 months or permanently - but
let the user make that decision and...
3. The user could, if he/she wants to, send the ISP e-notification that any
and everything coming from their system is blocked and how long the "time
out" period is, and the reason(s).

This last would be a hazard. If the parser mis-identifies the source, then
the notify annoys the wrong party.

Spammers change names and domain names constantly, and they employ a million
tricks, but they all have to have an ISP who has to remain "still" - and I
want to get him in the cross-hairs!

You can't get the spammer's ISP in your cross-hairs. He typically uses open
proxies, and rotates through them. For every open proxy you manage to get
shut down, ten more are out there waiting to be abused.

One person blocking out everything coming from an ISP won't get their
attention, but when 100,000+ people do, they'll have to decide to cut loose
the spammer or risk lose legit customers.

One person, or 100,000 people, the ISPs being blocked normally don't care a
fig. Indeed, some voluntarily submit IP addresses to blocklists because
their users shouldn't be running mail services on those IP addresses.

It may be worth a shot. If you agree, please reply and if enough of us do,
maybe, just maybe, MS will consider it!

MSFT shouldn't, and likely won't consider it. Ask MSFT to add a Naive
Bayesian filter to the next iteration of Outlook Express; that would be
more feasible.

For what you want, you might look into SpamCop reporting:

http://www.spamcop.net/

Just be sure that you take the time to understand the nature of parsing
spam headers. You are responsible for the reports sent. Getting things
wrong only makes matters worse, because the recipients of the reports will
tend to disregard them if they are inadequate, or incorrect.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

WindowsMail, due to be released with the next MS-OS-Vista, contains a Spam
filter. It works too.
mac

That's a lot of spam between now and 9 months from now. G

steve

" mac" wrote in message
...
WindowsMail, due to be released with the next MS-OS-Vista, contains a Spam
filter. It works too.
mac

If you aren't willing to wait, BitDefender security suite has an
anti-spam option that ads spam control options right into OE's toolbar.
Or you could switch to using Mozilla Thunderbird, which has spam
filtering built-in.

I can't speak from personal experience of either of these options,
though, as I use SpamAssassin on the mail server.

The PC Guru: www.the-pc-guru.com

Its unwise to use any program that interferes with OE's operations. See
www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3

steve

"the guru" wrote in message
ups.com...
If you aren't willing to wait, BitDefender security suite has an
anti-spam option that ads spam control options right into OE's toolbar.
Or you could switch to using Mozilla Thunderbird, which has spam
filtering built-in.

I can't speak from personal experience of either of these options,
though, as I use SpamAssassin on the mail server.

The PC Guru: www.the-pc-guru.com

"N. Miller" wrote:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:08:30 -0800, Bill wrote:



Okay, BUT...

Somewhere, surely, in "details" and/or "message sender" there is something
that "block sender" picks up on (like the senders name/address) that derails
it from ever getting in the receivers in box.

All I want is to be able to do the same to the sender's ISP, e.g. block
everything, regardless of name, address, etc., from him, the same as I can
now do to a single e-address/sender.

You wrote (that), "... have to be willing to learn how to run your own MTA
to do
this. Most people aren't."

I'm a writer. That's all. Learning how to do anything with a computer is a
chore and usually over my head. OE has made a lot of things easy, like
blocking a sender. Just carry it one more step on.

You also said, "... This can't be done at the client level. By the time MS
Outlook express is pulling email from the POP3 or IMAP server, the message
has been received. You can't block it, now; all you can do is divert suspect
email to a
special folder, or delete it. ...."

Okay, so OE does all that, but why can't I divert anything, any message,
that includes a designated ISP in the "details" or "message headings" as well
as a designated e-address/sender with the simple click of a key?

And, finally, "... MSFT shouldn't, and likely won't consider it. Ask MSFT to
add a Naive Bayesian filter to the next iteration of Outlook Express; that
would be more feasible."

I don't have a clue as to what you said. Who is MSFT and what is a Naive
Bayesian filter? Remember, I'm a writer, therefore computer stupid. Tell me
what to ask them for (and where to contact them) and I'll ask, nicely.

Come to think of it, maybe I should have used "divert" instead of "block."
There must be a difference.

You can make rules that will "delete from server" any message with an sender that has " and
block all sender from this ISP. However, if you are using that to block spam, you are wasting your
time. The spammers change ISP addresses faster than a chorus girl changes costumes. Blocking
sender does no good either because the ever changes names faster than ISPs and
the block sender works only on an exact match. So ever does not get blocked.

You need a true spam blocking software that is sophisticated enough to recognize trends, and knows
the bad ISPs, plus can be trained to recognize spam type messages. For this, you have to pay
someone for their programming talents.

"Bill" wrote in message
news :
:
: "N. Miller" wrote:
:
: On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:08:30 -0800, Bill wrote:
:
:
:
: Okay, BUT...
:
: Somewhere, surely, in "details" and/or "message sender" there is something
: that "block sender" picks up on (like the senders name/address) that derails
: it from ever getting in the receivers in box.
:
: All I want is to be able to do the same to the sender's ISP, e.g. block
: everything, regardless of name, address, etc., from him, the same as I can
: now do to a single e-address/sender.
:
: You wrote (that), "... have to be willing to learn how to run your own MTA
: to do
: this. Most people aren't."
:
: I'm a writer. That's all. Learning how to do anything with a computer is a
: chore and usually over my head. OE has made a lot of things easy, like
: blocking a sender. Just carry it one more step on.
:
: You also said, "... This can't be done at the client level. By the time MS
: Outlook express is pulling email from the POP3 or IMAP server, the message
: has been received. You can't block it, now; all you can do is divert suspect
: email to a
: special folder, or delete it. ...."
:
: Okay, so OE does all that, but why can't I divert anything, any message,
: that includes a designated ISP in the "details" or "message headings" as well
: as a designated e-address/sender with the simple click of a key?
:
: And, finally, "... MSFT shouldn't, and likely won't consider it. Ask MSFT to
: add a Naive Bayesian filter to the next iteration of Outlook Express; that
: would be more feasible."
:
: I don't have a clue as to what you said. Who is MSFT and what is a Naive
: Bayesian filter? Remember, I'm a writer, therefore computer stupid. Tell me
: what to ask them for (and where to contact them) and I'll ask, nicely.
:
: Come to think of it, maybe I should have used "divert" instead of "block."
: There must be a difference.

www.cauce.org
www.spamcop.net
www.dnsstuff.com
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/inbox.htm
http://cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/fall2002/spamreport.html
http://www.abuse.net/
http://www.spamx.com/
http://www.usdoj.gov/spam.htm
http://www.govspot.com/ask/spam.htm
about 137,000,000 for report spam.

Jeez, all ya gotta do's a little effort on your own part!!



"Bill" wrote in message
...
Okay, so nobody likes spam, but it seems like nobody is doing
anything to
stop it, other than blocking a sender or the domain - and
that's not working
very well.

Why not let the individual consumer/user do the deed?

Add a feature in OE that will give the USER the option to block
the bloody
ISP who
is allowing spam or porn to be sent through it's system. Under
where OE has
"Block Sender," add one that reads, "BLOCK ISP."

When the USER gets a spam e-mail, he or she clicks on the "new"
option and
with that one click of a key be told who, and where, the ISP is
and...

1. How many spam e-mails the user has received via that ISP so
he/she can
take
whatever action deemed necessary and...
2. The user would then be given the option of blocking
everything coming
from that ISP for a period of 10 days, 30 days, 6 months or
permanently - but
let the user make that decision and...
3. The user could, if he/she wants to, send the ISP
e-notification that any
and everything coming from their system is blocked and how long
the "time
out" period is, and the reason(s).

Spammers change names and domain names constantly, and they
employ a million
tricks, but they all have to have an ISP who has to remain
"still" - and I
want to get him in the cross-hairs!

One person blocking out everything coming from an ISP won't get
their
attention, but when 100,000+ people do, they'll have to decide
to cut loose
the spammer or risk lose legit customers.

It may be worth a shot. If you agree, please reply and if
enough of us do,
maybe, just maybe, MS will consider it!

I've looked at a some of these while researching what was out there for a
story, but found them too complicated, inadequate and/or too involved (read:
confusing) for me and other consumers like me who aren't in to computers as
an end unto itself, rather use them as a means to an end.

"Fighting" spam gets a lot of ink and air time, and it's certainly a huge
business. Maybe that's the problem, and sitting here looking at the clients
of a few lobbyists in Washington raises a question or two along that line.
You'd think that with all that muscle and money that some proposed
legislation to curb spam would at least make it out of committee. What's made
it to the floor to date is a farce or at best a hollow sham.

"PopS" wrote:

... Jeez, all ya gotta do's a little effort on your own part!!