Re: Filters and Spam
From: Michael Gray (labrat@onr.com)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:41:05 -0500
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:22:25 -0500,
debraw@wwa.com (Debra Walker) wrote this about Re: Filters and Spam:
>On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:08:48 -0500,
>in article <gJcnzY9GA02D092yn@onr.com>,
>labrat@onr.com (Michael Gray) wrote:
>
>>Remember that filters are accessed alphabetically. Then create a last
>>rule named zzz like so:
>>
>>rule name zzz
>>Search In: from
>>Search for: @
>>Action: delete
>>
>>Since you've moved what you want to the proper area, what's left is
>>tossed out. I toss mine to junk which has a 1 day expire time - long
>>enough for me to see if there's something I may have missed like new
>>mailing list addresses, but not so long as to clog up my newsbase TOO
>>long.
>
>This sounds like a good idea :)... I think that I will give it a shot.
>However, much of the junk email that I get has a bogus "To:" header.
>So, do you think that this filter might work for me if I substitute
>"To" in the Search In option, and, maybe, move those messages to
>another folder for further examination?
Hey, I thought if *I* could come up with this idea, everybody had
something similar. I suppose searching in any of the fields will toss
them into whatever folder/pseudo newsgroup you want. Someone else
suggested searching for a . (period.) If you set the search in: to
the entire header, a match will definitely be found keeping your inbox
pristine for all time.
--
======= Remove the 5 digit spamkiller from address before replying ==========
: LabRat 'at' onr 'dot' com : Just because you're paranoid doesn't :
: : mean they're not out to get you :
=============================================================================