Start-up wants your help to fight spam (SpamCatcher feature)

[Phil Pucci]

I haven't seen anything that describes specifically how
CoreComm is approaching the problem of SPAM but it
would be nice to get their perspective on how much they
can do with SpamCatcher. A technical description on
how it works would be even more helpful.

Does anyone have an inside scoop on SpamCatcher or
any other SPAM filtering techniques designed to be
processed on an ISP's server(s)?

Does Cloudmark (article link shown below) have a better
approach?

pdp

"Jim and Peg Nugent" <nu...@execpc.com> wrote ...
> I'm using SpamCatcher and it works fairly well. Today a piece of SPAM
> "leaked" through and it had the following header in the envelope:
> X-Spamcatcher-Digest: e8728217d6e698807c514994592a3f76
> This sounds like what they are talking about, i.e., digital signatures. I
> have no idea how ExecPC's SpamCatcher would get feedback on mis-identified
> Spam, unless they monitor what gets trashed and what gets rescued. Anyone
> know?
> Jim

> "Phil Pucci" <pdp...@execpc.com> wrote ...
> > Start-up wants your help to fight spam
> > By Stefanie Olsen, CNET News.com
> > June 19, 2002
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1023-937300.html
> > Does CoreComm (formerly ExecPC.com
> > & Voyager.net) use this type of technology
> > with their new SpamCatcher feature?

[ho...@noexecpcspam.com]

In execpc.general geezer <NoEma...@execpc.com> wrote:

> Hear hear. I still haven't forgiven them for removing the
> capacity to filter POP e-mail using procmail. That's what
> I USED to use to block spam and viruses, and it worked great.
>
> If they keep dumbing things down, they won't be any better
> than (barf) Hotmail.

I'll SECOND THIS AS LOUD AS I CAN!!!!!

I'm STILL hoping that they might re-incorporate in the near future. :-/

(Sorry that this is a bit late, but I just got back from
vacationing a little while ago.)

Brian Haug