293815 - Figure out the Default List of Server Based Junk Filters we want to support. spam pal added to list

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(MailNews Core :: Filters, defect)

Description

[Scott MacGregor]

Spun off from Bug #290237. Which junk mail services do we want to list in the
drop down box?

Spam Assassin for sure. What are the other big players we want to create these
.sfd files for which we should distribute?

Note: It's really easy for 3rd parties to create these .sfd files and write an
extension which drops them into the profile directory as well. So we don't need
to ship with all of them.

Comment 1

[Scott MacGregor]

This analyst report that David B. pointed me to lists a group of players in the
Spam industry:

http://www.gii.co.jp/english/rd16710_antispam_market_toc.html

See: CHAPTER VI: ANTI-SPAM VENDORS AND OUTSOURCERS

On a side note, I'm starting to suspect that a lot of these programs allow the
company deploying them to establish what header (or change to the subject) they
want to use. For instance, on the campus of USC, they use brightmail and the
header that needs searching for is: x-uscspam:spam. So it may be problematic for
us to have a filter for some of these if each company using it changes the header. 

Comment 2

[Scott MacGregor]

FYI, Yahoo! also has a custom header in case we decide to add them to our list:

"FYI, Yahoo! Mail inserts the header X-YahooFilteredBulk: into emails they think
are spam. "

Comment 3

[Scott MacGregor]

Attachment: [checked in]add spam pal to the lsit

Until we figure out the defaults we want to ship with, let's include SpamPal to
go along with Spam Assasin so we have two choices in the junk mail dialog menu
list.

Comment 4

[Scott MacGregor]

Comment on attachment 186640 [details] [diff] [review]
[checked in]add spam pal to the lsit

This patch has been checked in

Comment 5

[Scott MacGregor]

moving off the blocking list.

Currently we're shipping with spam pal and spam assassin. We can add others
later if you find some more Rafael. 

Comment 6

[Gordon Dickens]

My ISP uses the Barracuda Spam Firewall which works VERY well.  I hereby request that Barracuda be added to the list of server side spam filters in TBird's drop down menu. Barracuda Network's website is:

http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/?L=en

Thanks,

Gordon Dickens

Comment 7

[Robert Accettura [:raccettura]]

Problem with Barracuda among many others is their tagging method is custom for the install (your ISP chooses how to tag).

http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/spam_screenshots.php?p=&id=2
http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/spam_screenshots.php?p=&id=12

It's not per product.  So to support them with built in junk filters, we'd need to support every client, which isn't logical.  This is a popular trend among spam filters.

Comment 8

[Gordon Dickens]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the reply.

My ISP's Barracuda server tags spam by placing [BULK] in the subject field and I then use a TBird Message Filter to mark those emails as junk and move them to my junk folder.  Does TBird's adaptive filter learn from these emails that Barracuda has tagged and which TBird's message filter then marks as junk?  Is there any disadvantage of using TBird's Message Filters for handling the spam that is identified by server side spam filters?

Thanks,

Gordon

Comment 9

[Andrea Monni]

(In reply to comment #8)
> 
> My ISP's Barracuda server tags spam by placing [BULK] in the subject field and
> I then use a TBird Message Filter to mark those emails as junk and move them to
> my junk folder.  Does TBird's adaptive filter learn from these emails that
> Barracuda has tagged and which TBird's message filter then marks as junk?

I guess that if you mark them as Spam then they should be caught by the Bayesian filter and then "improve" the filter.

>  Is
> there any disadvantage of using TBird's Message Filters for handling the spam
> that is identified by server side spam filters?

I don't see any big trouble here, it should only improve the filter overtime. But I'm not an expert, I'm only guessing.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gordon
> 

Comment 10

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

is everything that's left covered in other bugs?

clearing target

Comment 11

[Kent James (:rkent)]

The bug is "Figure out ..." Since this functionality can and should be added in most cases through an extension, I would say that we have figured out that we want just 2, so this bug should be closed as complete. Any requests for specific support should be through other bugs.

Comment 12

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

->WFM