I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains the
latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email collection.
I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses and domains to my
Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an obvious SPAM
regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft seems to have
overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though. Here is
an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and innocent server
names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as the
Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that
contains the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk
email collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email
addresses and domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive.
However, an obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering
why Microsoft seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following
blank: From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data,
though. Here is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient
and innocent server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with
ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as
the Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.


All those headers are optional according to RFC 2822. That is, the To,
Cc, Bcc (which should not be included), and Subject may appear a minimum
of zero times or a maximum of 1 time. There is also no requirement that
the body be non-blank.

Since there is nothing to sell, scam, phish, or otherwise announce in a
blank e-mail, it can only be spam if it was sent out in bulk. As a
single recipient of the e-mail, you haven't a clue if that mail was sent
out to multiple recipients regardless of what is shown in the headers
(which is merely *data* created by the sender and is NOT used in the
actual routing of the mail). There would be no way to discern that this
mail was spam when it could be, for example, a listserver sending out a
newsletter to which you subscribed but it misconfigured.

Yes, the rules DO allow for blank values. Think about it. You are
looking for an ABSENCE of characters. So why not define a rule that
says to delete all mails EXCEPT if they contain a, e, i, o, u in them?
Learn to use the exception clauses to define a negative rule. If the
so-called spam (which it isn't but rather a nuisance mailing, to you) is
coming from the same sending mail server, you could even define a rule
that looks for the sending mail server's IP name or IP address in the
message headers.

Okay, let me start out by saying that I am a programmer, and that I have
been developing software for over a dozen years in half a dozen languages,
using virtually all of the technologies that exist until very recently
(including networking software that employs Pipes, Sockets, TCP, UDP, FTP,
HTTP, SMTP, NNTP, and one or 2 others I don't recall).

All those headers are optional according to RFC 2822. That is, the To,
Cc, Bcc (which should not be included), and Subject may appear a minimum
of zero times or a maximum of 1 time. There is also no requirement that
the body be non-blank.

The RFCs do not define what constitutes SPAM.

Wikipedia has one of the best definitions of SPAM that I know of:

"Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited,
bulk messages. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam,
the term is also applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging
spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, and
mobile phone messaging spam."

Since there is nothing to sell, scam, phish, or otherwise announce in a
blank e-mail, it can only be spam if it was sent out in bulk. As a single
recipient of the e-mail, you haven't a clue if that mail was sent out to
multiple recipients regardless of what is shown in the headers (which is
merely *data* created by the sender and is NOT used in the actual routing
of the mail). There would be no way to discern that this mail was spam
when it could be, for example, a listserver sending out a newsletter to
which you subscribed but it misconfigured.

The actual routing of the email is indeed included in the message headers. I
am not referring to the headers that are immediately visible when viewing an
email in Outlook, but the actual Internet message headers, which one can see
by selecting "View|Options" when the email is opened, and not in the preview
pane. These are the headers I copied into my post.

Although some of these headers can be faked by the sender, the faked headers
can be distinguished from the actual return path if you know what to look
for, and how to check it out, such as using ARIN whois, pinging, and sending
SMTP messages to the servers detailed in the return path. There are also
blacklists, and a host of other Internet resources available to use in the
diagnostic process.

Now, while it is true that I am a single recipient of the email, I own my
own domain, and the simple fact is that I get dozens of these a day.
Logically, it would follow that, since they are not messages to me (or to
anyone else for that matter), it is highly *unlikely* that some person or
persons unknown is singling *me* out a dozen times a day, and sending me
blank emails. In fact, the fact that these emails originate from a variety
of IP addresses, tends to indicate they are indeed being sent out in bulk,
for what reasons, I do not know. Perhaps they are hoping that they will
receive a few responses from each batch, from which they can build a list of
valid email addresses for the purpose of selling these lists to other
SPAMMers. Again, that is just a supposition. But the likelihood that these
are bulk emailed is not a supposition. It is a logical inference.

So, we have the situation of an email with no message, no From header, no To
header, no Subject header, and the likelihood that such emails are sent by
bulk to an unknown quantity of recipients. That much is certain.

In addition, we have the simple fact that such emails are worthless. They
contain no useful information. They are almost certainly sent without any
*good* intention. Therefore, since they are useless, and appear often in my
(and most probably many others) POP3 mail boxes, it would be *beneficial* to
filter them out, and certainly *not* harmful.

Also, in my research in visiting and reading many articles by authorities
regarding SPAM, these sorts of messages are routinely filtered out by many
anti-SPAM utilities. When I have the time to finish writing a good one, mine
most certainly will as well. Of course, I am quite a busy fellow, and that
could be a matter of years.

In the meantime, the question remains: Barring any logical reason to prevent
the filtering of such "empty" emails, and being the developers of the most
popular email client in the world, and having oodles of development money
and resources to develop the most popular email client in the world, why has
Microsoft not implemented this simple filter?

At any rate, I will implement a Rule such as you have described, using
negative logic, and appreciate the suggestion. Still, my suggestion remains.
And my assertion that such a filter should be created remains.

In fact, I find the Junk Email filtering tools in Outlook to be primitive
and hardly acceptable overall. Why must one include the '@' charactrer to
indicate a domain name? An email address already has one (after the user
name) to distinguish it from a mere domain name. Why can't one use wild
cards or regular expressions to block by domain names? And why can one not
specify IP addresses that are in the Internet headers and return path (which
are made difficult to find), but only in the From header, which is the most
likely (by virtue of being the easiest) header to be faked? I could
certainly understand why Microsoft might make this sort of configuration a
bit difficult to find for typical users, but I have found after much
research that it is simply *impossible* to configure these sorts of filters
in Outlook.

If I had been working on this software for the past 30 years, I most
certainly would have done better by now.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Vanguard" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains
the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email
collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses and
domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an
obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft
seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though. Here
is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and innocent
server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as the
Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.


All those headers are optional according to RFC 2822. That is, the To,
Cc, Bcc (which should not be included), and Subject may appear a minimum
of zero times or a maximum of 1 time. There is also no requirement that
the body be non-blank.

Since there is nothing to sell, scam, phish, or otherwise announce in a
blank e-mail, it can only be spam if it was sent out in bulk. As a single
recipient of the e-mail, you haven't a clue if that mail was sent out to
multiple recipients regardless of what is shown in the headers (which is
merely *data* created by the sender and is NOT used in the actual routing
of the mail). There would be no way to discern that this mail was spam
when it could be, for example, a listserver sending out a newsletter to
which you subscribed but it misconfigured.

Yes, the rules DO allow for blank values. Think about it. You are
looking for an ABSENCE of characters. So why not define a rule that says
to delete all mails EXCEPT if they contain a, e, i, o, u in them? Learn to
use the exception clauses to define a negative rule. If the so-called
spam (which it isn't but rather a nuisance mailing, to you) is coming from
the same sending mail server, you could even define a rule that looks for
the sending mail server's IP name or IP address in the message headers.

"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
Okay, let me start out by saying that I am a programmer, and that I
have been developing software for over a dozen years in half a dozen
languages, using virtually all of the technologies that exist until
very recently (including networking software that employs Pipes,
Sockets, TCP, UDP, FTP, HTTP, SMTP, NNTP, and one or 2 others I don't
recall).

Then you should quite familiar with the RFCs that define e-mail systems,
like SMTP, such as RFC 2822 which defines Internet Message Format (and
the headers that are contained within the *data* created by the user and
sent during the DATA command). You should even be familiar enough with
the RFCs to know where you can go look them up to verify or disprove my
claim that the headers you mention are completely OPTIONAL.

All those headers are optional according to RFC 2822. That is, the
To, Cc, Bcc (which should not be included), and Subject may appear a
minimum of zero times or a maximum of 1 time. There is also no
requirement that the body be non-blank.

The RFCs do not define what constitutes SPAM.

Boy, did you go off on a tangent. I didn't say the RFCs define spam. I
said that they state that the To, Cc, Bcc, and Subject headers are
OPTIONAL. That is still nothing to do with spam! They are optional,
period! Their absence does NOT constitute a definition of spam (as
being unsolicited BULK mailings).

YOU are the one claiming that blank To, Cc, and Subject headers qualify
an e-mail as spam. Not true as those headers are optional. Those
headers are also not used in routing the mail but are *data* sent in the
DATA command to the SMTP server. The aggregated list of recipients is
used by the e-mail client to issue RCPT-TO commands to the SMTP server
and *those* are what get used to specify the recipients.

Wikipedia has one of the best definitions of SPAM that I know of:

And which never mentions that spam is defined by the absence of the
OPTIONAL headers for Internet messages as defined by RFC 2822. Get a
grip, buddy. YOUR definition of spam as having blank To, Cc, and
Subject headers is NOT a valid definition of spam - unless you can prove
that MANY recipients got the same message from the same source but then
it isn't the headers that defined the mail as spam but its bulk mailing
that makes it spam.

The actual routing of the email is indeed included in the message
headers. I am not referring to the headers that are immediately
visible when viewing an email in Outlook, but the actual Internet
message headers, which one can see by selecting "View|Options" when
the email is opened, and not in the preview pane. These are the
headers I copied into my post.

Nope. All those headers that are added by the sender's e-mail client
are *data*. That is why spammers can use modified or customized e-mail
clients to insert whatever headers they want and even try to insert
bogus Received headers (which will be before the prepended Received
headers added by the mail hosts). Those headers are NOT ever sent to
the mail server to route your mails. They are in the DATA command and
are not used for routing. Your e-mail client aggregates all recipients
listed in the To, Cc, and Bcc *fields* shown in your e-mail client into
a list of RCPT-TO commands that get sent to your sending mail server,
and it is THOSE commands that are received by your sending mail server
that are used to route your mails to the recipients. Notice I say
*fields* in your e-mail client because they are simply part of the UI
presented to you in which to specify the recipients, but they could be
called anything (and can also be called anything within the content sent
within the DATA command). That they happen to match the header names to
which the field values provides convenience to the user. The "To"
*field&*in the UI could've been called "Recipients" and the "Cc" *field*
could've been called "Carbon-Copied Recipients" and your e-mail client
could then produce To and Cc *headers* (that are still data) in the
content of your mail, used X-headers, or even not added any headers with
the list of those recipients - because those *headers* are optional in
the mail content.

Now, while it is true that I am a single recipient of the email, I own
my own domain, and the simple fact is that I get dozens of these a
day.

Then you do have some proof that the sender is spewing bulk mailings.
Well, at least, many of them to you, that is. My guess is that it is
some misconfigured trojan mailer daemon running on an infected host that
is leaving the header *data* blank or missing and it can't find its
payload (spam) to put into the body (the first blank line after the
header data section).

In addition, we have the simple fact that such emails are worthless.

Unless it is a malcontent or opponent that wants to nuisance you. Not
likely, however. Not all spammers are wizards, so lots of newbies
stealing the spammer's tools don't know how to use them, communicate
with their army of zombied hosts, or they are misconfigured or there is
interference on the zombied host that prevents "proper" functioning of
the mailer trojan on the infected host.

In the meantime, the question remains: Barring any logical reason to
prevent the filtering of such "empty" emails, and being the developers
of the most popular email client in the world, and having oodles of
development money and resources to develop the most popular email
client in the world, why has Microsoft not implemented this simple
filter?

Already mentioned. Define a NEGATIVE rule by using the exception
clause. A Google search would show several posts by me, MVPs, and other
regulars mentioning how to define the rule. Rather than defining a rule
that tests on a condition and commits an action on a positive result,
you define a rule that commits the action EXCEPT for a negative of the
condition. So rather than testing on a NUL string for the value of a
header (or for the absence of the header altogether), you test on the
existence of the characters that you deem constitute a non-blank string.
You could define a rule to delete all messages *except* those that have
A-Z, 0-9, and the other characters in the header(s) but Microsoft has
never permitted the use of regular expressions (so you cannot define
ranges of characters). You would end up defining a rule to "delete all
mails except those that have a, b, c, ..., x, y, z, 0, 1, ..., 8, 9"
(and probably don't need to test on non-alphanumeric characters, like $,
#, &, etc.). However, an e-mail with a subject of "lk.9dr4--TJK"
probably won't be one you want, either. You'll probably expect your
good mails to be in English, and also the header isn't all numbers, so
"delete all mails except if the header contains a, e, i, o, u".

I've used negative rules (where the condition is tested in the "except"
clause) for a long time to get rid of blank mails. However, the rules
are not reliable when testing against strings within the body of the
mail. That is, a rule that "deletes mail except if body has a, e, i, o,
u" might not trigger and you still end up with mails that have a blank
body, especially for HTML-formatted mails. Rules that test for strings
within the body of the message haven't been reliable in Outlook (from
2002 and before, that is).

At any rate, I will implement a Rule such as you have described, using
negative logic, and appreciate the suggestion. Still, my suggestion
remains. And my assertion that such a filter should be created
remains.

Some e-mail and NNTP clients do have the filter that you mention, where
they can test on a NUL string (but some of them will fail to trigger
that rule when the optional header isn't even there). The biggest
problem with most users is that they have no understanding of Boolean
logic so defining rules is a bit of a mystery to them. Many aren't even
aware that clauses are AND'ed and rules are OR'ed (unless the
stop-clause is used to short-circuit the logic). Defining negative
rules is even harder for them to understand (and sometimes it isn't
obvious).

In fact, I find the Junk Email filtering tools in Outlook to be
primitive and hardly acceptable overall.

Ditto. I use SpamPal. It uses DNSBLs (DNS blacklist), Bayesian (which
seems to be the crux of OL2003's junk filtering but isn't nearly as
configurable), HTML weighting, logging, and other handy anti-spam
functions.

Why must one include the '@' charactrer to indicate a domain name?

If Microsoft were to include support for PCRE, the user could specify
exactly where in the URI to match on the [sub]string. I doubt regular
expressions will ever show up in Outlook. It's too Unix-like for
Microsoft.

An email address already has one (after the user
name) to distinguish it from a mere domain name. Why can't one use
wild cards or regular expressions to block by domain names? And why
can one not specify IP addresses that are in the Internet headers and
return path (which are made difficult to find), but only in the From
header, which is the most likely (by virtue of being the easiest)
header to be faked? I could certainly understand why Microsoft might
make this sort of configuration a bit difficult to find for typical
users, but I have found after much research that it is simply
*impossible* to configure these sorts of filters in Outlook.

And why I use SpamPal. Although I have yet to need it (because the
other spam filtering works so well), it also has a RegEx plug-in to let
you define regular expressions (but not PCRE syntax) that will let you
search on strings in any header. Outlook was never geared to be a
spam-filtering e-mail client and the junk filtering is a tacked on
feature that doesn't come close to 3rd party solutions (but then it
really wasn't meant to, anymore than Paint was meant to compete with
Adobe Photoshop).

If I had been working on this software for the past 30 years, I most
certainly would have done better by now.

I know of no software produced by anyone where someone else doesn't have
complaints with it or suggestions for improvement. Um, 30 years? Just
how long do you think Outlook has been around? PCs (personal computers)
came out in 1982. I bought my first one in 1984. Forget about anything
about e-mail since that communication milieu had yet to be invented. I
forget from whom Microsoft bought Outlook or what was its original name.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook, the first
version (after Microsoft got it) was called Outlook 97 so it was
probably released sometime during or after 1996. That makes it 10
years, not 30, that Outlook has been around. As I recall, e-mail got
added to Outlook (i.e., e-mail was not part of the original PIM
product).

Outlook is NOT geared to the consumer market as a personal e-mail
client. It is oriented to the corporate customers where it is expected
that spam filtering is done upstream of the e-mail clients used by end
users on their desktop hosts. In fact, this is still the model used in
corporate environments: spam filtering *should* be performed upstream on
the corporate mail host (i.e., server-side spam filtering gets used),
and any client-side is considered optional and superfluous to a degree
but the corporate end users may want it to get rid of what leaks by the
server-side filtering, plus the end users get to customize further how
to filter or organize their mails beyond the basic or global settings
implemented against all end users of that organization. I'm not
surprised that spam filtering has been something of a Johnny Come Lately
feature in Outlook because the primary customer of Outlook is the
corporate customer.

If it weren't for me already having Office which included Outlook, I
wouldn't bother go buying Outlook just to do e-mail. I would use
Outlook Express, Pegasus, or some other *personal* e-mail program AND
also add some good anti-spam software in the mix which gave me the extra
control that personal e-mail clients rarely provide. If you want to see
a really impotent rules set, go look at Thunderbird. I use Outlook
because it has a decent rules set (not great, could be improved, be nice
to have PCRE, but still good). Outlook Express' rules set is far less
capable than for Outlook. Thunderbird's rules sucks worse than OE's,
and I consider OE's rules set to be weak. If I was to lose Outlook, I
wouldn't go to OE or Thunderbird but find something with much more
potent rules (well, as good as Outlook's or better). I hear Pegasus
Mail has decent rules but I haven't bothered trialing it yet. However,
because I have SpamPal, I'd probably first delve into its RegEx plug-in
to augment the rules set in OE.

Blocked senders is one of the most useless ways to manage spam - they only
work if it's an address that sends often (like a newsletter you can't get
unsubscribed from). Use a rule to delete blank messages if the spam filter
is not catching them or get a better spam filter.

http://www.outlook-tips.net/archives/2004/20041018.htm

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains
the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email
collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses and
domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an
obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft
seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though. Here
is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and innocent
server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as the
Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

Thanks Diane,

I don't have a SPAM filter, and don't plan to get one any time soon, unless
it's free. I do plan to write one, though eventually. It just surprises me
that the SPAM filtering in one of Microsoft's "flagship" applications is so
.... cheesy. I am a big fan of Microsoft, and an MVP. But I wouldn't be doing
the company any favors if I was to ignore this sort of thing. I know they
read these newsgroups, so my hope is that I'll spark a little motivation!

In the meantime, I will use the negative logic Rule for keeping these
irritating blank emails out. Thanks for your help.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Blocked senders is one of the most useless ways to manage spam - they only
work if it's an address that sends often (like a newsletter you can't get
unsubscribed from). Use a rule to delete blank messages if the spam filter
is not catching them or get a better spam filter.

http://www.outlook-tips.net/archives/2004/20041018.htm

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains
the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email
collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses and
domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an
obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft
seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though. Here
is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and innocent
server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as the
Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

FYI, Microsoft trains the Outlook spam filter with samples submitted via
Hotmail.

Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
:

Thanks Diane,

I don't have a SPAM filter, and don't plan to get one any time soon, unless
it's free. I do plan to write one, though eventually. It just surprises me
that the SPAM filtering in one of Microsoft's "flagship" applications is so
... cheesy. I am a big fan of Microsoft, and an MVP. But I wouldn't be doing
the company any favors if I was to ignore this sort of thing. I know they
read these newsgroups, so my hope is that I'll spark a little motivation!

In the meantime, I will use the negative logic Rule for keeping these
irritating blank emails out. Thanks for your help.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Blocked senders is one of the most useless ways to manage spam - they only
work if it's an address that sends often (like a newsletter you can't get
unsubscribed from). Use a rule to delete blank messages if the spam filter
is not catching them or get a better spam filter.

http://www.outlook-tips.net/archives/2004/20041018.htm

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains
the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email
collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses and
domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an
obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft
seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though. Here
is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and innocent
server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as the
Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

Outlook's filter was designed to meet the needs of the greatest number of
users and requiring no effort. if it doesn't meet your needs spambayes is
quite good and free.

http://www.slipstick.com/rules/junkmail.htm#tools

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
Thanks Diane,

I don't have a SPAM filter, and don't plan to get one any time soon,
unless it's free. I do plan to write one, though eventually. It just
surprises me that the SPAM filtering in one of Microsoft's "flagship"
applications is so ... cheesy. I am a big fan of Microsoft, and an MVP.
But I wouldn't be doing the company any favors if I was to ignore this
sort of thing. I know they read these newsgroups, so my hope is that I'll
spark a little motivation!

In the meantime, I will use the negative logic Rule for keeping these
irritating blank emails out. Thanks for your help.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Blocked senders is one of the most useless ways to manage spam - they
only work if it's an address that sends often (like a newsletter you
can't get unsubscribed from). Use a rule to delete blank messages if the
spam filter is not catching them or get a better spam filter.

http://www.outlook-tips.net/archives/2004/20041018.htm

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains
the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email
collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses
and domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an
obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft
seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though. Here
is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and innocent
server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as the
Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

Outlook's filter was designed to meet the needs of the greatest number of
users and requiring no effort.

Every Office product is extensible. This aspect of this product, regardless
of Microsoft's assertions that SPAM is a huge problem (which it is), is not
very extensible at all, and as shipped, does a lousy job. As for the
"greatest number of users and requiring no effort" argument, that's just
marketing talk. It either does a good job or it doesn't. It doesn't.

Thanks for the link, but as I said, I plan to develop my own solution at
some point. I have some ideas which I want to try out, when I have the time.
I'm sure someone else will benefit from it, though.

Thanks gain,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Outlook's filter was designed to meet the needs of the greatest number of
users and requiring no effort. if it doesn't meet your needs spambayes is
quite good and free.

http://www.slipstick.com/rules/junkmail.htm#tools

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
Thanks Diane,

I don't have a SPAM filter, and don't plan to get one any time soon,
unless it's free. I do plan to write one, though eventually. It just
surprises me that the SPAM filtering in one of Microsoft's "flagship"
applications is so ... cheesy. I am a big fan of Microsoft, and an MVP.
But I wouldn't be doing the company any favors if I was to ignore this
sort of thing. I know they read these newsgroups, so my hope is that I'll
spark a little motivation!

In the meantime, I will use the negative logic Rule for keeping these
irritating blank emails out. Thanks for your help.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Blocked senders is one of the most useless ways to manage spam - they
only work if it's an address that sends often (like a newsletter you
can't get unsubscribed from). Use a rule to delete blank messages if the
spam filter is not catching them or get a better spam filter.

http://www.outlook-tips.net/archives/2004/20041018.htm

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains
the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email
collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses
and domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an
obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft
seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though.
Here is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and
innocent server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as
the Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the link, but as I said, I plan to develop my own solution
at some point. I have some ideas which I want to try out, when I have
the time. I'm sure someone else will benefit from it, though.


Well, if you are really interested in doing some development for spam
filtering, why not help out an existing anti-spam product that has
proven itself extremely effective - and is free, too. Farmer who writes
SpamPal could probably use some help or might like you to take up some
of the stagnant plug-ins or create a new plug-in. If anything, it would
help get your feet wet while providing value to an altruistic community
of developers all striving to eliminate spam without attempting to
generate revenue from the problem. It would take you a long time to do
better than SpamPal (along with all its plug-ins). You might try
helping the guy doing the Ruby plug-in (I have yet to understand that
one, but then I have yet to find a need to use the RegEx plug-in).