"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I just changed my e-mail address. Dave, what filter are you using?
Earthlink does not allow that kind of filtering, as far as I can tell.

I'm using the filters in my Netscape mail reader.
No way I'm changing my email address- too many years,
accounts and friends invested in this one.
73 Dave S.

Netscape is not going to filter out the stuff on the server. That
quickly fills up and jams everything.

wrote:

Netscape is not going to filter out the stuff on the server. That
quickly fills up and jams everything.

I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then the
filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't
have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S

I'm using Mozilla's junk filtering, which has been
terrific. I have it set up to send all "junk" to
a separate Junk folder. I then do a quick check for
false alarms and then delete it all, but you can set
Mozilla to delete it after a period of time automatically.
You train the filter by manually flagging junk for a little
while and then it takes over. In the past couple of days
since I activated it, it's handled well over a hundred
swen messages, with no false alarms and maybe one or two
"misses."

David Stinson wrote:


I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then the
filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't
have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S

I second that endorsement! Mozilla's (and now Netscape's) junk mail
controls are fantastic!

Cheers,
Fred

Larry Ozarow wrote:
I'm using Mozilla's junk filtering, which has been
terrific. I have it set up to send all "junk" to
a separate Junk folder. I then do a quick check for
false alarms and then delete it all, but you can set
Mozilla to delete it after a period of time automatically.
You train the filter by manually flagging junk for a little
while and then it takes over. In the past couple of days
since I activated it, it's handled well over a hundred
swen messages, with no false alarms and maybe one or two
"misses."

David Stinson wrote:


I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then the
filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up
with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S



--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

And they work even better if they are used in conjunction with
SpamBayes from sourceforge. A free baysian email filter that
very reliably marks your incoming email as spam, ham or undecided.
Once trained, I have never had a good email (ham) marked as spam
or undecided.

-Chuck

Fred Nachbaur wrote:
I second that endorsement! Mozilla's (and now Netscape's) junk mail
controls are fantastic!

Cheers,
Fred

Larry Ozarow wrote:

I'm using Mozilla's junk filtering, which has been
terrific. I have it set up to send all "junk" to
a separate Junk folder. I then do a quick check for
false alarms and then delete it all, but you can set
Mozilla to delete it after a period of time automatically.
You train the filter by manually flagging junk for a little
while and then it takes over. In the past couple of days
since I activated it, it's handled well over a hundred
swen messages, with no false alarms and maybe one or two
"misses."

David Stinson wrote:


I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then
the filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up
with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S

And they work even better if they are used in conjunction with
SpamBayes from sourceforge. A free baysian email filter that
very reliably marks your incoming email as spam, ham or undecided.
Once trained, I have never had a good email (ham) marked as spam
or undecided.

-Chuck

Fred Nachbaur wrote:
I second that endorsement! Mozilla's (and now Netscape's) junk mail
controls are fantastic!

Cheers,
Fred

Larry Ozarow wrote:

I'm using Mozilla's junk filtering, which has been
terrific. I have it set up to send all "junk" to
a separate Junk folder. I then do a quick check for
false alarms and then delete it all, but you can set
Mozilla to delete it after a period of time automatically.
You train the filter by manually flagging junk for a little
while and then it takes over. In the past couple of days
since I activated it, it's handled well over a hundred
swen messages, with no false alarms and maybe one or two
"misses."

David Stinson wrote:


I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then
the filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up
with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S

I second that endorsement! Mozilla's (and now Netscape's) junk mail
controls are fantastic!

Cheers,
Fred

Larry Ozarow wrote:
I'm using Mozilla's junk filtering, which has been
terrific. I have it set up to send all "junk" to
a separate Junk folder. I then do a quick check for
false alarms and then delete it all, but you can set
Mozilla to delete it after a period of time automatically.
You train the filter by manually flagging junk for a little
while and then it takes over. In the past couple of days
since I activated it, it's handled well over a hundred
swen messages, with no false alarms and maybe one or two
"misses."

David Stinson wrote:


I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then the
filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up
with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S



--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

I'm using Mozilla's junk filtering, which has been
terrific. I have it set up to send all "junk" to
a separate Junk folder. I then do a quick check for
false alarms and then delete it all, but you can set
Mozilla to delete it after a period of time automatically.
You train the filter by manually flagging junk for a little
while and then it takes over. In the past couple of days
since I activated it, it's handled well over a hundred
swen messages, with no false alarms and maybe one or two
"misses."

David Stinson wrote:


I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then the
filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't
have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S

"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Netscape is not going to filter out the stuff on the server. That
quickly fills up and jams everything.

I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then the
filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't
have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S

I don't think Earthlink seems to care. You end up changing your e-mail
address while they continue to lie about how it is your responsibility to
overcome their software limitations. For them 10 meg is a joke and they
seem to care less if all their mailboxes are always at 10 meg.

"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Netscape is not going to filter out the stuff on the server. That
quickly fills up and jams everything.

I've got my mail reader set to download mail every 2 minutes, then the
filters take over. That keeps the server clean. Admittedly, if I
didn't
have DSL, it wouldn't work. No dialup could possibly keep up with the
mess.
The ISPs are going to have to do something soon; if you haven't noticed,
a great many regular users are, for all practical purposes, offline.
73 Dave AB5S

I don't think Earthlink seems to care. You end up changing your e-mail
address while they continue to lie about how it is your responsibility to
overcome their software limitations. For them 10 meg is a joke and they
seem to care less if all their mailboxes are always at 10 meg.