Outlook rule doesn't work

[Bob]

Using Outlook 2002

I use Outlook rules to try and manage spam. I'm hoping someone can suggest
why a rule that's supposed to delete messages that don't have my email
address in the To or Cc text box aren't working on some messages that don't
display my email address in To or Cc text boxes in the viewable message
header.

I was under the impression from the wording of the rule that even if my
email address was in the Bcc text box (which is unviewable), as long as it
wasn't in the To or Cc text box it would be deleted. It seems that these
spammers have figured out a way around a rule like this one. If anyone has
suggestions on how to create a rule that will effectively delete more of the
spam I receive where my address isn't in the To or Cc text box, I'd be very
grateful. Thanks in advance.

Bob

[Chuck Davis]

Bob,

Your e-mail address is in the header information. All of the filters that
have been developed can't stop them all. I use Outlook 2003 which has an
improved filter algorithm which is updated through Office Update, and my ISP
has a filter which I have turned on. Still some get through.

The Delete key takes very little time for those that do get through.

I suggest that you create a new e-mail address that isn't easily generated
by a computer, i.e., b12d3...@domainname.com Your correspondents will
either get used to it or place it in their contacts (address) lists.

"Bob" <nospa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:_fsNd.2206$oO....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

[Bob]

Thanks for the reply, Chuck. I was hoping for better news. From time to time
I think about changing me email address, but for the time being it seems
easier to delete the spam that gets through. I'm just trying to refine the
process so the fewest number of spam get through.

Bob

"Chuck Davis" <newsgroup at anthemwebs dot com> wrote in message
news:%23b5GpZH...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

[Roady [MVP]]

Or take a look at the lots and lots of anti-spam tools out there. Some are
free some are just a few bucks. Keep in mind that not one solution is 100%.
I'm very happy with the Junk E-mail FIlter in Outlook 2003. It catches
practically all my spam messages (and I get lots each day from my website
address) while still having the filter set on "Low".

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
www.howto-outlook.com

Tips of the month:
-What do the Outlook Icons Mean?
-Create an Office 2003 CD slipstreamed with Service Pack 1

-----

"Bob" <nospa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:fbuNd.2298$oO....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

[Bob]

Thanks, Robert.

Maybe it's time to reconsider upgrading to Office 2003. Sounds like there
are some Rules and Anti-spam improvements over 2002.

I've been pretty satisfied with my ability to manage spam with Outlook
2002's Rules. I was just hoping to understand a little better why my rule to
delete messages where my email address doesn't appear in the To or Cc text
boxes doesn't work on some messages where I don't see my email address in
these text boxes. I thought maybe if I understood how spammers were
circumventing my rule, maybe I could modify the rule to achieve better
results. Thanks for the suggestions, Roady.

Bob

"Roady [MVP]" <newsgroups_DELETE_@_DELETE_sparnaaij_NO_._SPAM_net> wrote in
message news:O1aHWQID...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

[Swifty]

> I was just hoping to understand a little better why my
> rule to delete messages where my email address doesn't appear in the
> To or Cc text boxes doesn't work on some messages where I don't see my
> email address in these text boxes.

Bob, there's probably nothing wrong with your rule. I have been told in the
past that there are circumstances where the rules don't process 100% of
inbound mail. I forget the precise causes, but the problem happens when
you start outlook after an absence and there is a rush of mail.

Unless your rule permanently deletes items you can, in effect, audit its
effectiveness. As well as other actions, use the "assign to category" rule
to put it in a category such as "Not to me".

Then, when you find an item which should have been handled, you can see by
its categories which rule(s) processed it.

If it appears to have slipped by your rule then you can run the rule again,
by editing the rule and checking the "Run now" box just before clicking
"Finish".

If the rule works this time then you were probably a victim of "rush-hour
traffic". The bypass for this is to try to leave outlook running in the
background.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.ringers.org.uk (Personal Webpage)
http://hedgehog.farn.uk.ibm.com (IBM Internal - restricted)