| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
User interfacesUser interfacesPosted Feb 23, 2006 6:09 UTC (Thu) by gdt (subscriber, #6284)Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to bayesian spam filters
What these packages really need is a more convenient user interface for the corporate user. Train the filter with a command line interface? I think not. Most corporate Linux environments don't offer xterm to the average user. It would be nice if a simple action, such as pressing the Junk button in the mail reader or moving a message to a Spam folder, could be communicated back to to the filters by the IMAP server.
(Log in to post comments)
User interfaces Posted Feb 23, 2006 6:57 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] popfile will do exactly this (classify based on moving the message between IMAP folders), and has a web GUI to use as well.
unfortunantly it has two problems (one major, one minor)
the major one is that it is still single-user (multi-user operation is under development, but stalled as the core developer moved to France)
the minor one is that popfile maintains one IMAP session per folder, this is actually much less resource intensive for the server then opening and closing folders to cycle through them, but it 'looks suspicious' when a sysadmin does a netstat and sees lots of connections from one client. when I get a chance I intend to add a 'max connections' parameter that will limit how many connections are in use at a time.
User interfaces - yes! Posted Feb 23, 2006 8:21 UTC (Thu) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] This is a very important point. As Linux heads towards the desktop, we need spam filters that can be trained by clicking on 'spam' 'not spam' buttons, ala Thunderbird.
Indeed, I would have liked to have seen Thunderbird included in this test - it too claims to have a Bayesian spam filter.
User interfaces - yes! Posted Feb 23, 2006 13:33 UTC (Thu) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] I mostly disagree. Spam filtering is an upstream, mail-provider problem. Failing that, however (let's say you're stuck with a lax sysadmin who doesn't care about the spam flooding his/her users), it is good to have a fallback like MUA filtering.
User interfaces - yes! Posted Feb 23, 2006 13:55 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Except that training, an essential component of spam filtering these days, is a downstream, user problem.I think that ALL spam filtering should occur on the server, before the message queue. This just solves so many problems. However, training necessarily requires user interaction, and therefore should be supported in the MUA. True, there are web-based hacks, like in dspam, to try to work around this but just try explaining them to a clueless user!
User interfaces Posted Feb 23, 2006 8:41 UTC (Thu) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] Doesn't Evolution do just that? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm a Gnus user myself, but the Debian Evolution packages recommend spamassassin, so I'd guess they offer at least some kind of GUI for it.
User interfaces Posted Feb 23, 2006 17:30 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] The problem with feeding back the message the user sees is that by that time the user sees it, Outlook has already destroyed the headers - there is no standard way to extract an undamaged, as-delivered message from Outlook and send it back to the anti-spam system. Dspam work around this by inserting a hash into the ongoing message. When it's sent back for "rescoring", it extracts the hash code and then just reassigns the tokens associated with that hash. The downside is that the users wonder about that weird code in all their e-mails. Another method is used by Maia Mailguard, which just keeps a cache of all the mail. The user needs to go to a web interface to mark false negatives, but it also let's them look through the spam cache to find and release false positives. (Maia is "just" a front-end to amavisd/spamassassin).
User interfaces Posted Feb 23, 2006 22:09 UTC (Thu) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] DSPAM can put the Signature in the headers. Then, your users won't wonder about anything. ;)
User interfaces Posted Feb 28, 2006 13:46 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] If it's in the headers, it doesn't do any good: Outlook won't send it back to the filter when the message is forwarded.
User interfaces Posted Feb 26, 2006 15:21 UTC (Sun) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] What headers does Outlook destroy? I understand that the Stats-headers is modified, but that's the same with all MUAs and could easily be fixed by excluding that specific line.
Are other headers destroyed too? Do different MUAs destroy different headers? I would be very interested to know!
User interfaces Posted Feb 28, 2006 13:44 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] There's no way (that I've found[1]) to bounce a message from Outlook. By "bounce" (aka "redirect"), I mean to send the message to a different address w/o mucking with headers, so that it goes to the second address looking just as if it had been sent there originally (modulo any "Received" headers, but those aren't particularly relevant at this point). Forwarding is not equivalent. as that adds all sorts of crap to the body of the message *and* loses the headers. Why is this a big deal? Because to retrain Bayesian-type spam filters, you need to provide something relatively close to the original message. Outlook just can't do it. Steve [1] There are add-on modules that will do this for Outlook. The chance of getting one installed and working on an existing collection of ~20,000 pcs of various vintages is 0.
User interfaces Posted Mar 25, 2006 11:27 UTC (Sat) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Moving a message doesn't destroy the headers.
User interfaces Posted Sep 22, 2006 6:47 UTC (Fri) by bobpriston (guest, #40434) [Link] You can use the field PR_TRANSPORT_MESSAGE_HEADERS from IMessage for programming or Options.. in right click menu to get "original" internet headers for email. Outlook spam filter http://www.spam-reader.com Spam Reader and others get all necessary information in this way. And work with good effeciency.
User interfaces Posted Feb 23, 2006 17:56 UTC (Thu) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link] > It would be nice if a simple action, such as pressing the Junk button in> the mail reader or moving a message to a Spam folder, could be communicated > back to to the filters by the IMAP server.
I do exactly that:
User interfaces Posted Mar 2, 2006 10:08 UTC (Thu) by jpetso (guest, #36230) [Link] I think Kontact/KMail offers the optimal solution here by integrating thecommand-line filters with its graphical interface. You just have to choose one of bogofilter, spamassasin or whatever in the Anti-Spam Wizard and Kontact sets up the appropriate filter rules and toolbar buttons. I think it's cool that they don't try to reinvent the wheel (like Thunderbird does) but let the users select their favorite, already mature tools. (They also do it the same way for anti-virus filtering, which may become relevant in a few years too...)
|
|
||||||||||||