Rules based on friendly names in sender
David Kerber
the "friendly name" version of the sender's address, rather than the
actual "from" address?
I get lots of spam with spoofed from addresses in the headers, but the
friendly name that shows in outlook has "viagra" in it, in one form or
another. How can I make a rule based on that?
D
David Kerber
ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com says...
Am I safe in assuming that the resounding silence means this can't be
done?
D
Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
Well, it could also mean that a lot of US-based group habitues are
out on vacation or just haven't caught up yet, since you posted this
message on Sunday and it's only just Monday. Plus, you've posted in a
group that doesn't get a lot of traffic. Plus, you haven't mentioned
your version & SP level of Exchange. Plus, you haven't mentioned that
you are actualy using exchange. And lastly, rules are an Outlook
thing, not an Exchange thing, while this is an Exchange group.
:-)
That said, I don't think what you want is possible. Anyway, rules are
a pretty useless method to deal with spam. If you're getting a lot of
spam in Outlook, and you run Exchange, you shou;d be filtering at the
server ...or in front of your server, via a hosted service like
Postini or similar. If you're using regular old standalone outlook
without Exchange, and your ISP/mail host doesn't have any filtering
options, you can get antispam software for your computer. Or change
ISPs - you shouldn't wait til it gets to your workstation to handle
it.
![Diane Poremsky [MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXVxjSdFcRpKNTQfnB5xlIL8kIAq-LpCvVnJ3prkvuymgW38Hs=s40-c)
Diane Poremsky [MVP]
See http://xsolive.com/Outlook%20Screen%20shots/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=133
for an example.
It's really better to set outlook's junk filter on high and let it do the
work - you'll end up a lot of rules with limited usability.
--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/
Outlook Tips by email:
mailto:dailytips-sub...@lists.outlooktips.net
EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:
mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-S...@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Poll: What version of Outlook do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072
"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25a153a46...@news.conversent.net...
David Kerber
says...
>
> Use a words in the header rule.
> See http://xsolive.com/Outlook%20Screen%20shots/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=133
> for an example.
>
> It's really better to set outlook's junk filter on high and let it do the
> work - you'll end up a lot of rules with limited usability.
I do; it's always been on high, and I keep it updated, but I still get a
lot through, probably because the spoofed "from" address is my own
address.
Thanks for the suggestion
D
David Kerber
lanw...@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com says...
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:41:11 -0500, David Kerber
> <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.25a153a46...@news.conversent.net>,
> >ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com says...
> >>
> >> In outlook 2003, Is there a way of making rules that trigger based on
> >> the "friendly name" version of the sender's address, rather than the
> >> actual "from" address?
> >>
> >> I get lots of spam with spoofed from addresses in the headers, but the
> >> friendly name that shows in outlook has "viagra" in it, in one form or
> >> another. How can I make a rule based on that?
> >>
> >> D
> >
> >Am I safe in assuming that the resounding silence means this can't be
> >done?
> >
> >D
>
> Well, it could also mean that a lot of US-based group habitues are
> out on vacation or just haven't caught up yet, since you posted this
> message on Sunday and it's only just Monday. Plus, you've posted in a
> group that doesn't get a lot of traffic. Plus, you haven't mentioned
> your version & SP level of Exchange. Plus, you haven't mentioned that
> you are actualy using exchange. And lastly, rules are an Outlook
> thing, not an Exchange thing, while this is an Exchange group.
Well, outlook is an exchange client; that's why I thought would be the
place to start, and I thought 24 hours should be plenty of time if it
was just a setting I was missing somewhere. But you're right that I
forgot a bunch of needed info in my post; sorry about that.
>
> :-)
>
> That said, I don't think what you want is possible. Anyway, rules are
> a pretty useless method to deal with spam. If you're getting a lot of
> spam in Outlook, and you run Exchange, you shou;d be filtering at the
> server ...or in front of your server, via a hosted service like
> Postini or similar. If you're using regular old standalone outlook
> without Exchange, and your ISP/mail host doesn't have any filtering
> options, you can get antispam software for your computer. Or change
> ISPs - you shouldn't wait til it gets to your workstation to handle
> it.
We're using Exchange 2007, and I've looked into spam filtering on the
server, but they're mostly pretty expensive for a company of 15 users.
D
Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
<ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Well, outlook is an exchange client;
It can be, but it's not exclusively so :)
> that's why I thought would be the
>place to start, and I thought 24 hours should be plenty of time if it
>was just a setting I was missing somewhere.
Well, not to belabor the point, but you posted your first message on a
Sunday. And microsoft.public.exchange.admin gets most of the Exchange
traffic (and MS is trying to move people onto the web forums instead
of newsgroups, against my bitter protests). But that's not important
now.
> But you're right that I
>forgot a bunch of needed info in my post; sorry about that.
No worries.
<snip>
>
>We're using Exchange 2007, and I've looked into spam filtering on the
>server, but they're mostly pretty expensive for a company of 15 users.
>
>D
It's also expensive in the long run to store/process/manage spam
internally. Even if you don't head it off at the pass before it gets
to your server, don't wait until it hits the client - that's very
inefficient.
Your Exchange antivirus software might be able to do something
(allthough it's already hit your server at that point, of course)
...this isn't my favorite option.
Or something like Postini, which is usually $2/month per mailbox. The
nice thing about this solution is that not only does it do a great job
of keeping out spam and viruses, you never have to worry about false
positives - the users will all get a daily digest with clickable links
to release/deliver incorrectly quarantined items.
Or, if you don't care about that, invest a few shekels in ORF from
www.vamsoft.com - they have an eval. It's a great product with
excelllent support.
Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
Waiting until it gets to Outlook is not ideal. See my other reply.
David Kerber
lanw...@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com says...
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:38:02 -0500, David Kerber
> <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Well, outlook is an exchange client;
>
> It can be, but it's not exclusively so :)
>
> > that's why I thought would be the
> >place to start, and I thought 24 hours should be plenty of time if it
> >was just a setting I was missing somewhere.
>
> Well, not to belabor the point, but you posted your first message on a
> Sunday. And microsoft.public.exchange.admin gets most of the Exchange
> traffic (and MS is trying to move people onto the web forums instead
> of newsgroups, against my bitter protests). But that's not important
> now.
I agree with your feelings about web forums vs news groups...
...
> Or something like Postini, which is usually $2/month per mailbox. The
> nice thing about this solution is that not only does it do a great job
> of keeping out spam and viruses, you never have to worry about false
> positives - the users will all get a daily digest with clickable links
> to release/deliver incorrectly quarantined items.
>
> Or, if you don't care about that, invest a few shekels in ORF from
> www.vamsoft.com - they have an eval. It's a great product with
> excelllent support.
I like the looks of that one; thanks for the link.
D
Dave Onex
"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanw...@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5lckj5hvk04kbrcgd...@4ax.com...
I'm also running ORF on an Exchange Server. It's very inexpensive ($299 ?)
as a one time cost and their yearly maintenance fee is entirely optional.
It's a really, really good company with an excellent product and excellent
support.
You can also use ClamAV with ORF (at no cost) making it an effective
anti-spam and anti-virus platform for Exchange. I've been running both for
several years now and I might average 3 spams in my inbox per month.
Literally. It's that good, it's that cheap and it's that powerful :-)
Can't recommend it enough.
Best;
Dave
Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
wrote:
<snip>
>
>I'm also running ORF on an Exchange Server. It's very inexpensive ($299 ?)
>as a one time cost and their yearly maintenance fee is entirely optional.
>It's a really, really good company with an excellent product and excellent
>support.
>
>You can also use ClamAV with ORF (at no cost) making it an effective
>anti-spam and anti-virus platform for Exchange. I've been running both for
>several years now and I might average 3 spams in my inbox per month.
>Literally. It's that good, it's that cheap and it's that powerful :-)
>
>Can't recommend it enough.
>
>Best;
>Dave
>
Me too; I love it. The only reason I don't like to install it in
offices w/o full-time IT support is that there's no user-accessible
quarantine and users won't know what happened to the mail they didn't
get. ;-)