SpamX is a really great product!

I would like to see the following improvements :

1) Once the information is fed into SpamX, it would be nice if the software would automatically send the SMTP information to the appropriate party via Outlook Express.

2) Additional databases that hold contact information would be a plus.

I have no regrets about buying SpamX.

Thanks for your feedback!

Both of these options are in the works and will be released in an upcoming version of SpamX.

Please keep checking back with us, when a release is done, it's posted on the Web site, and on this message board.

Thanks again!

I would like to see a way to batch process spam. I use Norton AntiSpam, so all of my spam ends up in one folder. Clicking on each message, alt-tabbing back and forth, and checking off my local ISP/UUNet that showed up in every single path, got tired pretty quickly.

I've been saving the spam - 3400 from the last 5 weeks - and there is no way I am going to manually go through all of them.

Being able to define the address to skip sending messages to in a properties file, and then running a script to process every message in a specific folder, is the only way to deal with this type of volume.

Any thoughts on some type of bulk processing?

Thanks for your feedback.

Yes sir. Bulk processing is priority number one.

I am currently working on this very issue. I expect to have the bulk email processing completed over the next few weeks.

Please check back often for updates!

Compatibility with other email clients. I have been playing with thunderbird, the free email client from the mozilla people and I really like it so if I could use SpamX with it as well it would be fantastic.

Hi Jeff & folks,

Couple of suggestions and a perceved problem.

Suggestion.. When clicking in the IP Addresses box, the resolved domain should be shown in the Domain box. Reason, see below.

Ok, I've been using SpamX for a few days now, found a couple of bugs which have been fixed .

Now, I've tried the batch processing on my daily spam - 96 this morning - and got back some quite snotty replies to the effect that I should report spam to the abuse account as defined in RIPE, and "spam did not originate here, address is forged" and so on.

So, on the next lot (24) I did them manually. I don't like pissing off network admins (i'm one) or postmasters (I'm one) or ip_address admins (I'm one) and just blindly sending the abuse reports to every ripe contact is rather like a shit-shotgun - everyone gets some

My suggestion then, is, when processing the ripe/arin feeds, If there is an addess containing "abuse" then prefer that and check all the others for non-sending ( or don't list at all).

I beleive this is what Spamcop does.

Also, if you press the Copy button to copy the headers and messages, something is incorrectly wrapping the header lines causing spamcop to refuse processing. This may be the windows clipboard though.

Bazz

Thanks for this feedback!

I have a 'Configure' option built into SpamX that creates a 'do not send' list.

Some items that I have in my list are:

IANA.ORG
NIC.MIL
NE.JP
COM.AR
NET.BR
NIC.BR
TIP.NET
ARIN.NET
VALUEWEB.NET
NET.CO
COM.MX
COM.BR
COM.PL
COM.HK
COM.TW
NET.MX
NET.IL

I think this should address most of your first concern. The idea of only sending to the 'abuse' address is a good one, I'll make the observation that a lot of the lookups that I do do not return an 'abuse' address, but general format public contact email addresses. I could be talked into this, but need more feedback from customers.

You are providing me with superb feedback BaZz... I really appreciate it!

I've added your list to my don't send.

On the Abuse@ idea, if there is no abuse contact, then the others are all fair game.
If sysadmins don't provide an abuse reporting route they have to expect to get reports.

BAzz

You may be right BAzz (especially considering your line of work), I just need a little more feedback to push me over the edge.

Like Bazz I've had some replies that are from people less than happy at receiving my spam report.
One even went as far to threaten to report me for spamming him if I sent him any more!!!
So the abuse@ option wouldbe a fair one to add I think.

Ok, I'm sold. Next version. One report per domain, preferrably to the ABUSE@ address.

Another suggestion...

When DE-selecting hosts to report to, add them to the don't send list.
Checkbox option whether to or not by default? or a right-click option?

Also....and this carries on from the previous whois depth thing, how about having a user-definable lsit of of whois servers?

Bazz

Forgot one

When you do batch processing, it deltes the processed messages.

Can we have an option to do the same thing then manually processing individual ones?

Wow, bAZz these are great ideas!

I really like the user defined whois list.

I'm doing some work right now on the forgery detection. I might be able to put this list in at the same time....

Thanks!!!