![]() ![]() After 12 months of ownership, Intego asks that you pay $30 to renew your subscription for another year. The program also uses URLs to decide whether a message is spam-Intego updates a database of spammy URLs once a month. Likewise, you can edit the list of attachment types that cause a message to be identified as spam (the program filters messages with. You can add, edit, and remove blacklist and whitelist entries. You can view the contents of its spam corpus (called the Lexical Dictionary in this program) and delete individual entries or the entire contents of the corpus (to reset it, for example). Personal Antispam X4 gives you a little more control. ![]() Other than correcting it when it wrongly identifies messages as spam, you have no options for adjusting its behavior. Like other utilities that include Bayesian filters, it learns as it goes. The program provides no access to its blacklist, its spam corpus (the collection of words the Bayesian filter uses to identify spam), or its filters. (For definitions of some important spam-fighting terms, seeĭesigned for ease of use, SpamSweep-which installs an IP and domain-name blacklist, builds a whitelist of your approved senders, and offers Bayesian filtering-is the least configurable of the lot. Some also have a “revenge” feature that lets you report spam to antispam agencies or to what the program believes is the spammer’s ISP. Nearly all include blacklists, whitelists, and a variety of statistical-learning filtering schemes. Are there hidden costs (such as paid subscription updates)?Įach of these utilities uses a variety of common techniques to filter spam.Is it easy to train (or is training unnecessary)?.Does it support a variety of spam-fighting techniques?.Does it deal with spam locally or remotely?.Which e-mail systems does it support (POP, IMAP, or both)?.Is the software easy to install and configure?. ![]() In addition, we considered the following key questions: We then fed each program the same bucket of junk, to see how it dealt with some egregious forms of spam, right out of the box. We examined each utility’s interface, ease of use, and mode of operation, and made some general judgments about its comparative effectiveness at eliminating spam-we say “general” because good spam filters get better with time and adapt to spam’s changing nature. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |