I still receive too much spam. Still relying on Thunderbird.
I wonder if Thunderbird's filter has been improved at all lately. Some possible improvements come to mind. For example it could take into consideration who is already in my address book. If somebody sends me an email with only an image and no text, and that someone is not in my address book, it seems safe to consider it spam.
It should also remember whom I actually sent mails to, and filter all "Unknown Recipient" mails that I never triggered.
Also, how can emails with "VIAGRA" in the subject pass by the spam filter? It must have had thousands of opportunities to learn that VIAGRA in emails equals spam.
I took care to write "VIAGRA in emails equals spam", to exclude the case of real Viagra as being sold in pharmacies. Of course I didn't add "in emails to me".
What I wish for is that Thunderbird can teach my server about spam. That is, if I flag a mail, Thunderbird should inform the server, and the server should learn. There might already be a standard for that kind of thing, but I am not sure.
I think the server will also need adaptive filtering techniques (like bayesian networks), in addition to the technical filters like greylisting.
I wonder if Thunderbird's filter has been improved at all lately. Some possible improvements come to mind. For example it could take into consideration who is already in my address book. If somebody sends me an email with only an image and no text, and that someone is not in my address book, it seems safe to consider it spam.
It should also remember whom I actually sent mails to, and filter all "Unknown Recipient" mails that I never triggered.
Also, how can emails with "VIAGRA" in the subject pass by the spam filter? It must have had thousands of opportunities to learn that VIAGRA in emails equals spam.
Guess I should go find Thunderbird's bug tracker.