Missing e mails

So i'm still a bit confused - do NTL now have a SPAM filter deleting e-mails addressed to me without my knowledge ?

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by pem

So i'm still a bit confused - do NTL now have a SPAM filter deleting e-mails addressed to me without my knowledge ?

we still dont know , but what happens if it deletes something that isnt spam

[br3ach]

ahhh

thats better

[Enterian]

Personally, I'd rather NTL passed ALL my emails and let me sort the spam. I have yet to find a spam filter that doesn't occasionally flag legitimate emails as spam.

[bertJ]

Just to add insult to injury I haven't received notification by e mail of replies to my original posting on this forum. I have ticked 'Instant notification by e mail'!
However, an e mail hasn't appeared in Yahoo mail either so I'm more confused.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by pem

So i'm still a bit confused - do NTL now have a SPAM filter deleting e-mails addressed to me without my knowledge ?

I realy hope NTL have not done this. I am 100% behind Pem on this one. NTL have no right intercepting mail. I have no objection in tem adding a x-spam header to the mail. People can then use outlook to filter the mail if they want !

Who the hell are NTL to decide what is and what is not spam.

BTW did you get that email I sent you about viagra Pem ??

[Sociable]

This is one case where an opt out rather than opt in makes sense as yes it is true some will want to be in total control and not have NTL providing a filter.

The larger picture, however, is that it now clear some form of direct action by the ISP's is the only way any meaningful reduction in spam will be possible.

The blacklisting of known sources of spam is, I suspect, the most likely candidate as that still provides a method for appeals to be made as and when this prevents legitamate mail getting through.

Sorry if this offends people but this is one case where the principle of the greater good should apply and IMHO NTL should follow the example of those ISP's already putting spam eradication high on the list of priorities.

[threadbare]

unless you recieve emails from spam merchants its unlikely ntl's spam filters have deleted your personal emails

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Sociable

This is one case where an opt out rather than opt in makes sense as yes it is true some will want to be in total control and not have NTL providing a filter.

The larger picture, however, is that it now clear some form of direct action by the ISP's is the only way any meaningful reduction in spam will be possible.

The blacklisting of known sources of spam is, I suspect, the most likely candidate as that still provides a method for appeals to be made as and when this prevents legitamate mail getting through.

Sorry if this offends people but this is one case where the principle of the greater good should apply and IMHO NTL should follow the example of those ISP's already putting spam eradication high on the list of priorities.

I agree in a way. They need to force spam filtering but only by flaging the mail's as spam and not deleting them. I have tried many many spam filter programs over the years and I have not found one that does not "false alarm"

What hapens if an email is marked as spam and dumped and it is not spam. How is the user going to get the mail ??? How is the user going to get NTL to remove the sender from the spam list ???

I have no problems with the compulsary flaging of the mail - GREAT - but please dont lets get into a culture of deleting first and asking questions later.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by threadbare

unless you recieve emails from spam merchants its unlikely ntl's spam filters have deleted your personal emails

Sorry m8 - its very likely.... Spam asasin for example will spam mark a mail that does not have a subject header, How many time have you sent or been sent an email without a subject ????

[Nemesis]

If NTL are intorducing Spam filters ... would it be regionally or globally, cos it ain't working for me either ..... or am I expecting too much

[Sociable]

Sorry stuartbe I disagree on this for a few reasons.

First is that simply flagging e-mails does nothing at all to reduce the traffic which is a far bigger problem than the anoyance for individual users important though that is.

Second if mail is refused the sender would be adivised his mail was rejected and why so appeals can be made.

But the main reason is that a clear message has to be sent to the spammers so they know there is no longer any point in sending spam as that at the end of the day is the desired effect of the filter.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

I agree in a way. They need to force spam filtering but only by flaging the mail's as spam and not deleting them. I have tried many many spam filter programs over the years and I have not found one that does not "false alarm"

What hapens if an email is marked as spam and dumped and it is not spam. How is the user going to get the mail ??? How is the user going to get NTL to remove the sender from the spam list ???

I have no problems with the compulsary flaging of the mail - GREAT - but please dont lets get into a culture of deleting first and asking questions later.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1357955,00.asp

Brightmail's developers believe that a false-positive mistakeââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â‚¬ÂÂ�say, a note from a client treated as spamââ‚ ¬Ã¢â‚¬ÂÂ�can be very costly. True to that mission, Brightmail Anti-Spam (BAS) yielded not a single false positive on our tests. It did let 11.1 percent of the messages we deemed as spam through to our in-box, but that number was not out of line with the others here (the range was a low of 7 percent to a high of 37.9 percent, as shown on the chart below).

http://www.brightmail.com

http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/announ...3-12-10a.shtml

Demon are introducing spam deletion at the server, but you are able to opt out if you choose.

[Enterian]

Originally Posted by threadbare

unless you recieve emails from spam merchants its unlikely ntl's spam filters have deleted your personal emails

If you think that I suggest you get yourself a copy of Mailwasher and set it to check your email against the Spamcop database.

The number of false positives is scary

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Sociable

Sorry stuartbe I disagree on this for a few reasons.

First is that simply flagging e-mails does nothing at all to reduce the traffic which is a far bigger problem than the anoyance for individual users important though that is.

Second if mail is refused the sender would be adivised his mail was rejected and why so appeals can be made.

But the main reason is that a clear message has to be sent to the spammers so they know there is no longer any point in sending spam as that at the end of the day is the desired effect of the filter.

The way to block the spammers is for ISP'S to sort out there security. An email with a spoofed ip or source address can be spoted instantly by any decent mail server, 90% of spamed mails have this information forged. If ISP'S stopped spoofed packets passing the BGWR on there network people would not be able to spoof the address. This would also stop dns, ddns and rddns atacks from hitting people as there packets would be killed at the gateway.

You need to atack the problem - not the symptom !!