Spam Filter for Outlook 2003, Recommendations?

[Nehmo]

I have Outlook main window > Tools > Options > Junk E-mail > set to Low
because I'm scared I'll miss something if I set to High. I really don't
know how High works.

What kind of spam filters are available for Outlook 2003 that would
block a message like the one represented below? The sender keeps
changing its e-address so blocking that won't help. Should I use
something that looks at the subject line?
Header of a sample spam message (with my own addy munged):


X-Kaspersky: Checked
Return-path:

<b.ConfirmAccounts.0-72dcaea-2122.kc.rr.com.-nehmo@001.theeconfirm.com>
Received: from ms-mta-01 (ms-mta-01-smtp [10.15.8.71])
by ms-mss-04.rdc-kc.rr.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.10 (built Dec 26 2005))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for Nehmo AT
kc.rr.com;
Wed, 24 May 2006 02:26:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from hrndva-mx-01.mgw.rr.com (hrndva-mx-01.mgw.rr.com
[24.28.204.20])
by ms-mta-01.rdc-kc.rr.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.10 (built Dec 26 2005))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for Nehmo AT
kc.rr.com
(ORCPT Nehmo AT kc.rr.com); Wed, 24 May 2006 02:26:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from 001.theeconfirm.com ([66.195.91.161]) by
hrndva-mx-01.mgw.rr.com
with ESMTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 03:26:46 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by 001.theeconfirm.com (8.8.8/8.8.8)
id BAA14624; Wed, 24 May 2006 01:12:29 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:26:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: ConfirmAccounts <[email protected]>
Subject: Member #1277 - BestBuy #LGXB-4786 offer for Nehmo AT kc.rr.com
To: Nehmo AT kc.rr.com
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Original-recipient: rfc822;nehmo AT kc.rr.com

 

[rsandler1966]

Spam Bully does a pretty good job with stuff like that.

 

[Brian Tillman]

What kind of spam filters are available for Outlook 2003 that would
block a message like the one represented below? The sender keeps
changing its e-address so blocking that won't help. Should I use
something that looks at the subject line?
Header of a sample spam message (with my own addy munged):

I might choose a rule that looks for "theeconfirm" or "iPlanet Messaging" in
the headers.

 

[Nehmo]

I might choose a rule that looks for "theeconfirm" or "iPlanet Messaging" in
the headers.

I just got two more. They're in the same style and in plain text, but
those terms weren't included.

 

[Nehmo]

I might choose a rule that looks for "theeconfirm" or "iPlanet Messaging" in
the headers.

I just got two more. They're in the same style and in plain text, but
those terms weren't included.

 

[Brian Tillman]

I just got two more. They're in the same style and in plain text, but
those terms weren't included.

Well, then, look for anything common between them and use that.

 

[John from Puget Sound]

I tried Spam Beyes(sp.) but didn't think it did much more than the Outlook
filters - though the interface was fine.

I'd suggest you try the HIGH setting, you can always pull out the mistakes
from the "SPAM" folder that the junk gets put into. Just review the stuff
filtered into the junk folder before deleting it.

- John

 

[Nehmo]

I'd suggest you try the HIGH setting,

I set it to High. We'll see, but if you have to constantly check your
Junk folder, then the purpose of the filter is pretty much defeated.
And I *would* have to constantly check. I'm already in trouble for not
responding to a particular email soon enough, and this was a
normally-processed message. Previously, while on Low, at least I never
had a legitimate message misrouted to Junk. We'll see how risky High
is.

Oh, I just discovered something about Outlook. In Windows applications,
you can hold down the Shift and delete something and it'll bypass the
Recycle Bin. Outlook works the same way. You can hold down the shift
and you can bypass the Deleted Items folder.

 

[Pat Willener]

I have been using Cloudmark Desktop for years, and it successfully
filters 97%-100% of all incoming spam with *very* few false positives.
It's not free, but when I look back to the time when I had to manually
remove hundreds of spam messages from my Inbox - I shudder...

 

[Brian Tillman]

I tried Spam Beyes(sp.) but didn't think it did much more than the
Outlook filters - though the interface was fine.

Perhaps not at first, but the advantage to SpamBayes is that it's trainable
and gets better over time. Outlook's filter can be changed only by
Microsoft and it's static between updates.

 

[Brian Tillman]

I have been using Cloudmark Desktop for years, and it successfully
filters 97%-100% of all incoming spam with *very* few false positives.

However, Cloudmark, in my opinion, suffers from the fact that it's driven by
opinions other than your own. People flag what they believe is junk on
their machines and that, in turn, makes it junk on YOUR machine. I'd rather
not accept that.

 

[Pat Willener]

However, Cloudmark, in my opinion, suffers from the fact that it's driven by
opinions other than your own. People flag what they believe is junk on
their machines and that, in turn, makes it junk on YOUR machine. I'd rather
not accept that.

That *is* true, and it is a very good point to make! However, the system
is very complex (with a rating level for all participants), and after
using it for 3 years I have to say that it works very well for me.

 

[Nehmo]

I set it to High. We'll see,

It's catching them now. So far no false positives, but it's only been
on High for 2 legitimate messages.