Cox → Re: [ALL] Spam (non)filters

While I've seen more spam getting thru lately, it's far from as bad as it could be.

No spam blocker from what I've seen is more than 85% effective - keyword more than.

Try Cloudmark Desktop. Great spam blocker.

If it were 85% effective I wouldn't be complaining, it seems to be around 5% effective or less.

I wouldn't need a spam blocker if the one Cox is using was functional.

To nickphx, why pay anything for non-working software?

I agree, paying for software that doesn't work is pointless. When you consider the scope of a project like replacing email filtering for cox.net and their millions of customers... It's difficult, if not impossible to implement properly without ruffling some feathers..

I would say the cox spam filter gets a majority of the crap I get sent to my cox.net account. I setup gmail to pull my cox.net mail via pop3.. So what doesn't get caught by cox's filter, gmail ends up catching. In the rare event something gets passed those two filtering/reputation systems, I end up marking it as spam.

I would never install some desktop based crap like cloudmark.. Their outlook plugin is very chatty with their remote servers.. Every message you receive gets hashed and passed on to their remote servers.

nickphx,

If it doesn't get hashed and passed on, how is it supposed to detect spam?

So far it's turned out to be the best solution I've found...

Second off, you guys are never going to find a perfect solution. Period. End of story.

Because cox.net's email address are among spammer's top lists to invade, if you want out of the rut, switch to google and turn on SMTP when you setup your account, I hardly get any spam with google. if Cox started to offer email as an optional service, then they could offer better spam filtration and maybe offer AVG or Konspiricy vs Crapafee for internet security as well.

-Rob

My "guess" is it at least 85% effective. I receive very few - single digits a week - spam emails.