MWP 2010 questions etc.

[airwolf]

I've just upgraded to the new version, and so far it's working out "ok" (sort of) for me.

There are some notable differences from the earlier version (6.5.4) I was using. Most notably, the absence of a clearly viewable "Spam" or "Good" button, right in the E-mail line (in MWP's "In-Box"). I know there are a couple of tiny icons there now, for distinguishing between those two things, but are there (or could there be??) plans to bring those buttons back?

Prior to downloading and installing this new MWP 2010, I was a subscriber to "FirstAlert!", and was always glad to have the added protection this service gave me. However - when I enabled "FirstAlert!" in this new 2010, I didn't see anywhere for my FA account number to either be entered, or viewed (e.g. if it were 'snagged' from the installation of an earlier version). How does FA work/integrate with this new version?

In the earlier version I mentioned, I found it very helpful, to be able to scroll down the list of scanned messages, and opt for the appropriate 'check mark box' (e.g. bounce, delete, report). I miss having such easy access to these selectable options. Are there plans to bring them back? Also - should users of this new version automatically assume, that each "spam" identified (or selected as such) message is automatically reported?

I would welcome the input from this forum, on these questions.

[Sidewinder]

I've just upgraded to the new version, and so far it's working out "ok" (sort of) for me.

There are some notable differences from the earlier version (6.5.4) I was using. Most notably, the absence of a clearly viewable "Spam" or "Good" button, right in the E-mail line (in MWP's "In-Box"). I know there are a couple of tiny icons there now, for distinguishing between those two things, but are there (or could there be??) plans to bring those buttons back?.

These are the Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down shown in the "Classify" column.

Prior to downloading and installing this new MWP 2010, I was a subscriber to "FirstAlert!", and was always glad to have the added protection this service gave me. However - when I enabled "FirstAlert!" in this new 2010, I didn't see anywhere for my FA account number to either be entered, or viewed (e.g. if it were 'snagged' from the installation of an earlier version). How does FA work/integrate with this new version?

FA is now an integral included feature with the annual subscription price you have the ability to turn it on or off with Settings, Spam Tools, First Alert.

In the earlier version I mentioned, I found it very helpful, to be able to scroll down the list of scanned messages, and opt for the appropriate 'check mark box' (e.g. bounce, delete, report). I miss having such easy access to these selectable options. Are there plans to bring them back? Also - should users of this new version automatically assume, that each "spam" identified (or selected as such) message is automatically reported?

Bouncing has become a really dis-functional tool (search the forum for posts from Stan on the subject). It is available for the you really have to do it by right clicking on a highlighted message in the grid or from the preview pane. Reporting will come in a later release. Again search the forum for Stan and his alternate method to accomplish in the interim.

[rusticdog]

All as above. Your FA account is now embedded in your Registration, so no need to manage personal accounts and passwords anymore.

[stan_qaz]

Spam is not reported to FirstAlert by users any longer, there was a continuing problem with some users reporting non-spam messages to the system which caused false positives and unwanted deletions. Firetrust looked a t a bunch of options, reputation system for reporters, admin approval of reports, various scoring methods for reports and adding an automatic reporting/fix method for dealing with bad reports that slipped through the cracks anyway. All that would be complicated and expensive and still wouldn't give as good a method of preventing false positives.

The Firetrust folks decided to no longer use reports from the users, that eliminated all of the above problems and expense and instead came up with an automated spam detection and reporting system to feed FirstAlert. In addition to being more accurate the automatic system appears to be picking up spam and flagging it much sooner than the user reports ever did. I don't know all the details but I can sure appreciate the results.

Bottom line for me is the new version had reduced false positives to zero over the last 10,000 messages I've been tracking, tags more spam messages and tags messages from spam runs within minutes of their starting.

To save you a search here is a canned response I used for v6 and older from time to time:

Bouncing spam from MW is so time consuming I just can't see doing it for my spam, it takes so long to parse the headers and try to decide which spams will go back to the spammer (less than 5% of mine) and what percentage will either go nowhere (forged fake address) or actually help the spammer (forged stolen address) that it just isn't productive to sort them out and I don't want to help the spammer so I don't do it.

Bouncing to a forged fake address isn't a big deal, it does put some load on the server you are bouncing to but it is able to sort out the fake addresses and delete them with little effort.

Bouncing to a stolen forged address is a real hassle for the poor fellow who has had their address stolen, it is not uncommon for these folks to see several thousand bogus bounce messages from e-mails the spammer has sent. Spammers know this and from time to time they make an effort to cause anti-spammers as much grief as possible. This has gotten so bad that services like spamcop.net now allow users to report as abuse bounces, challenge/response messages and vacation messages sent in response to forged spam.

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html

Spam amounts vary as spammers change their patterns and update their lists, there is a possibility that a spammer who is not using a forged addresses (that 5%) could remove your name from their list. The problem is that most spammers are smart enough to realize that most legitimate mail servers do not send bounces due to the way they can be abused, rather they send a reject status as a response when the message is originally being sent. Unless you run across a really dumb spammer a MW bounce won't work, actually it is simple to identify and filter out these bogus bounces using MW.

What MW does very well is to keep you from triggering the methods spammers do use to track you which keeps you invisible to the spammer so he does not know your spam mail was delivered and viewed. That has the effect of making sending you e-mails an iffy proposition, the spammers put their efforts into sending e-mail that works.

I'd really like to see more user protection added to the bounce feature but most of the options available don't give a complete solution and add a good bit to the complexity of the bounce function. For this release the Firetrust folks have at least attempted to reduce the damage folks were causing by bouncing all their spam in the older versions and I'm hoping they can add additional tools to both the bounce function and the spam detection tools to further reduce the problem.

[airwolf]

All as above. Your FA account is now embedded in your Registration, so no need to manage personal accounts and passwords anymore.

This is good to know! A nice way to be able to make use of FA. (And also, one less monthly payment.) Thanks for the input!

[airwolf]

SIdewinder - thanks for your input! I was never much of a user (or fan) of the "Bounce" option, anyway. It was more the ease of ability to select "Spam" or "Good" (or even "Delete") that I was looking for. It's good to know, that this automated use of FirstAlert seems to be a lot better (and faster?!) at detecting spam. This clears up my 'curiosity' re how FA works with the new MWP 2010. I see the use of "SpamCop" and "SpamHaus" is a default option; nice. All in all....this would seem to be a better integrated program (with the various detection methods available)!

Firetrust - if you're reading this - keep up the good work!!

[rusticdog]

SIdewinder - thanks for your input! I was never much of a user (or fan) of the "Bounce" option, anyway. It was more the ease of ability to select "Spam" or "Good" (or even "Delete") that I was looking for. It's good to know, that this automated use of FirstAlert seems to be a lot better (and faster?!) at detecting spam. This clears up my 'curiosity' re how FA works with the new MWP 2010. I see the use of "SpamCop" and "SpamHaus" is a default option; nice. All in all....this would seem to be a better integrated program (with the various detection methods available)!

Firetrust - if you're reading this - keep up the good work!!

Oh yes, reading all the time...

And yes, FirstAlert should be faster now as we stopped using the SOAP Authentication mechanism that the old version uses and use the same mechanism designed for our server product, that has to cope with huge volumes of emails so it was a better implementation. Not to mention the programmer spent several days trying many different techniques to get the best speed out of FirstAlert.