JUNK Mail folder #3

For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends 
up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe list?


John
-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/7/2018 2:25:31 AM
mozilla.support.thunderbird 22506 articles. 4 followers. Post Follow

37 Replies
139 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 47

On 6/6/18 8:25 PM, John Wolf wrote:
> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends 
> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe 
> list?
> 
> 
> John

I opened Outlook for Mac and added this address to the safe sender list 
and closed Outlook. Will this mean that TB will now treat this sender as 
NOT JUNK Mail?


-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/7/2018 3:06:56 AM
John Wolf <jwolf6589@NOSPAMgmail.com> Wrote in message:
> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends 
> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe list?
> 
> 
> John

Does not TB contain naive Bayesian spam filter, being trained by
 manual moving false positives/negatives from/to junk folder by
 marking it as non spam/spam?
-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/7/2018 3:24:11 AM
On 6/6/2018 7:25 PM, John Wolf wrote:
> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends 
> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe list?
> 
> 
> John
> 

You have to "train" Thunderbird.

When I open my Junk folder, I see two buttons: "Not Junk" and "Delete
Junk".  If I determine a message is not junk, I select the "Not Junk"
button.  The message gets moved to my Inbox folder (unless I have a
filter to move it elsewhere).

At the same time, Thunderbird "remembers" that the message is not junk.
In the future, similar messages are less likely to wind up in the Junk
folder.  Each time a similar message does happen to wind up in the Junk
folder and I again select the "Not Junk" button, it becomes even less
likely a similar message further in the future will be treated as junk.

-- 
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

First you say you do, and then you don't.
And then you say you will, but then won't.
You're undecided now, so what're you goin' to do?
                        From a 1950s song
That should be Donald Trump's theme song.  He obviously
does not understand "commitment", whether it is about
policy or marriage.
0
David
6/7/2018 4:22:23 AM
On 6/6/18 9:24 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> John Wolf <jwolf6589@NOSPAMgmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends
>> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe list?
>>
>>
>> John
> 
> Does not TB contain naive Bayesian spam filter, being trained by
>   manual moving false positives/negatives from/to junk folder by
>   marking it as non spam/spam?
> 

I do not know how do I find out? I never marked this one sender as SPAM 
if that's what you are asking.



-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/7/2018 7:18:19 AM
John Wolf <jwolf6589@NOSPAMgmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 6/6/18 9:24 PM, Libor Striz wrote:

>> 
>> Does not TB contain naive Bayesian spam filter, being trained by
>>   manual moving false positives/negatives from/to junk folder by
>>   marking it as non spam/spam?
>> 
> 
> I do not know how do I find out? I never marked this one sender as SPAM 
> if that's what you are asking.
> 
> 
No, it is not.

TB has basically 4 ways how to mark/unmark a particular  massage
 as a spam, placing ( or not) it in the junk folder.

1/ in the TB account settings, there is option, if TB should trust
 junk evaluation of internet spam markers, like Spam
 Assassin.

2/ Manual user marking of a particular email as a spam, or non
 spam, flipping spam flag.

3/ Action of adaptive Bayesian filter, that progressively learns
 from user manual spam (un)marking AND from email content, what
 would the user probably mark as spam.

4/ Using explicit TB filter, marking as spam emails fitting given
 conditions.


-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/7/2018 8:36:51 AM
On 6/7/18 2:36 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> John Wolf <jwolf6589@NOSPAMgmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 6/6/18 9:24 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> Does not TB contain naive Bayesian spam filter, being trained by
>>>    manual moving false positives/negatives from/to junk folder by
>>>    marking it as non spam/spam?
>>>
>>
>> I do not know how do I find out? I never marked this one sender as SPAM
>> if that's what you are asking.
>>
>>
> No, it is not.
> 
> TB has basically 4 ways how to mark/unmark a particular  massage
>   as a spam, placing ( or not) it in the junk folder.
> 
> 1/ in the TB account settings, there is option, if TB should trust
>   junk evaluation of internet spam markers, like Spam
>   Assassin.
> 
> 2/ Manual user marking of a particular email as a spam, or non
>   spam, flipping spam flag.
> 
> 3/ Action of adaptive Bayesian filter, that progressively learns
>   from user manual spam (un)marking AND from email content, what
>   would the user probably mark as spam.
> 
> 4/ Using explicit TB filter, marking as spam emails fitting given
>   conditions.
> 
> 

I disabled SPAM assassin on that account so hopefully this will fix the 
problem.



-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/7/2018 9:58:35 AM
On Wed Jun 06 2018 23:06:56 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), John Wolf
<jwolf6589@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> I opened Outlook for Mac and added this address to the safe sender list 
> and closed Outlook. Will this mean that TB will now treat this sender as 
> NOT JUNK Mail?

What makes you think changing something in Outlook would affect how
thunderbird behaves?

But this introduces new information not previously presented. If you are
using both clients, then you first  need to determine which one is
responsible for moving the messages to Junk.

First - what is the actualname of the Junk folder? If it is 'Junk
Email', then that is the folder Outlook uses. If it is just plain
'Junk', that is Thunderbirds.

So, whichever client os doing the junking is where you need to fix it.
0
Tanstaafl
6/7/2018 12:57:47 PM
On 2018-06-06 22:25, John Wolf wrote:
> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends 
> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe 
> list?
> 
> 
> John


Mark it as Not Junk, and Move it to the Inbox.

Make sure that:
a) the sender is in your address book; and
b) that the boxes in Account settings - Junk Settings, the boxes in "Do 
not automatically mark..." are ticked.

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."
0
Wolf
6/7/2018 1:55:50 PM
On 6/6/18 10:22 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 6/6/2018 7:25 PM, John Wolf wrote:
>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends
>> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe list?
>>
>>
>> John
>>
> 
> You have to "train" Thunderbird.
> 
> When I open my Junk folder, I see two buttons: "Not Junk" and "Delete
> Junk".  If I determine a message is not junk, I select the "Not Junk"
> button.  The message gets moved to my Inbox folder (unless I have a
> filter to move it elsewhere).
> 
> At the same time, Thunderbird "remembers" that the message is not junk.
> In the future, similar messages are less likely to wind up in the Junk
> folder.  Each time a similar message does happen to wind up in the Junk
> folder and I again select the "Not Junk" button, it becomes even less
> likely a similar message further in the future will be treated as junk.
> 


How do I add a sender to the safe-sender list if there is such a feature 
in TB? I know that Outlook for Mac has such a feature. Okay if not 
possible how do I open a message and tell thunderbird this is not JUNK. 
Such a button does not exist in the Mac version.


-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/7/2018 2:27:28 PM
On 6/7/18 6:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On Wed Jun 06 2018 23:06:56 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), John Wolf
> <jwolf6589@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> I opened Outlook for Mac and added this address to the safe sender list
>> and closed Outlook. Will this mean that TB will now treat this sender as
>> NOT JUNK Mail?
> 
> What makes you think changing something in Outlook would affect how
> thunderbird behaves?
> 
> But this introduces new information not previously presented. If you are
> using both clients, then you first  need to determine which one is
> responsible for moving the messages to Junk.
> 
> First - what is the actualname of the Junk folder? If it is 'Junk
> Email', then that is the folder Outlook uses. If it is just plain
> 'Junk', that is Thunderbirds.
> 
> So, whichever client os doing the junking is where you need to fix it.
> 


No it wont change it I just hoped it would.



-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/7/2018 2:28:08 PM
On 6/7/18 7:55 AM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2018-06-06 22:25, John Wolf wrote:
>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always 
>> ends up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the 
>> safe list?
>>
>>
>> John
> 
> 
> Mark it as Not Junk, and Move it to the Inbox.
> 
> Make sure that:
> a) the sender is in your address book; and
> b) that the boxes in Account settings - Junk Settings, the boxes in "Do 
> not automatically mark..." are ticked.
> 

I do not believe these features exist in the Mac version. I have no way 
of marking a message in my Junk folder as not junk.

-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/7/2018 2:29:41 PM
On 6/7/18 10:29 AM, John Wolf wrote:
> On 6/7/18 7:55 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>> On 2018-06-06 22:25, John Wolf wrote:
>>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always 
>>> ends up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to 
>>> the safe list?
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>> Mark it as Not Junk, and Move it to the Inbox.
>>
>> Make sure that:
>> a) the sender is in your address book; and
>> b) that the boxes in Account settings - Junk Settings, the boxes in 
>> "Do not automatically mark..." are ticked.
>>
> 
> I do not believe these features exist in the Mac version. I have no way 
> of marking a message in my Junk folder as not junk.
> 

Right click on it and select Mark > As Not Junk from the Context menu.

-- 
GO GOLDEN KNIGHTS!
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
0
WaltS48
6/7/2018 2:35:03 PM
On 2018-06-07 10:29, John Wolf wrote:
> On 6/7/18 7:55 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>> On 2018-06-06 22:25, John Wolf wrote:
>>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always 
>>> ends up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to 
>>> the safe list?
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>> Mark it as Not Junk, and Move it to the Inbox.
>>
>> Make sure that:
>> a) the sender is in your address book; and
>> b) that the boxes in Account settings - Junk Settings, the boxes in 
>> "Do not automatically mark..." are ticked.
>>
> 
> I do not believe these features exist in the Mac version. I have no way 
> of marking a message in my Junk folder as not junk.

Click on Subject in the header pane, you should see Mark with a right 
arrow, click on that, you should see Mark As Not Junk as one of the options.

You can also add the Junk icon column to the header display, click on 
it, that will Move the mail back to the Inbox.

Tip: Play around with all the menus, just to become familiar with what 
all Tbird can do.

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."
0
Wolf
6/7/2018 3:14:17 PM
On 6/6/2018 10:25 PM, John Wolf wrote:
> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends 
> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe 
> list?
> 
> 
> John

This is as easy as pie, and already documented.  (Does no one consult or 
refer people to documentation?)

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/thunderbird-and-junk-spam-messages#w_per-account-settings
0
Wayne
6/7/2018 3:33:16 PM
On 6/7/18 8:35 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 6/7/18 10:29 AM, John Wolf wrote:
>> On 6/7/18 7:55 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-06 22:25, John Wolf wrote:
>>>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always 
>>>> ends up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to 
>>>> the safe list?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark it as Not Junk, and Move it to the Inbox.
>>>
>>> Make sure that:
>>> a) the sender is in your address book; and
>>> b) that the boxes in Account settings - Junk Settings, the boxes in 
>>> "Do not automatically mark..." are ticked.
>>>
>>
>> I do not believe these features exist in the Mac version. I have no 
>> way of marking a message in my Junk folder as not junk.
>>
> 
> Right click on it and select Mark > As Not Junk from the Context menu.
> 


You are a genius. I guess the Mac version has the feature afterall.



-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/8/2018 2:37:35 AM
On 6/7/18 9:14 AM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2018-06-07 10:29, John Wolf wrote:
>> On 6/7/18 7:55 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-06 22:25, John Wolf wrote:
>>>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always 
>>>> ends up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to 
>>>> the safe list?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark it as Not Junk, and Move it to the Inbox.
>>>
>>> Make sure that:
>>> a) the sender is in your address book; and
>>> b) that the boxes in Account settings - Junk Settings, the boxes in 
>>> "Do not automatically mark..." are ticked.
>>>
>>
>> I do not believe these features exist in the Mac version. I have no 
>> way of marking a message in my Junk folder as not junk.
> 
> Click on Subject in the header pane, you should see Mark with a right 
> arrow, click on that, you should see Mark As Not Junk as one of the 
> options.
> 
> You can also add the Junk icon column to the header display, click on 
> it, that will Move the mail back to the Inbox.
> 
> Tip: Play around with all the menus, just to become familiar with what 
> all Tbird can do.
> 


I can also right click on the message. Yes TB has allot of features! I 
plan to use it for a while and give Outlook a rest.


-- 
Sent on Thunderbird for the Mac
You don't believe in God or the Bible?
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/creationism.html
0
John
6/8/2018 2:38:49 AM
John Wolf <jwolf6589@NOSPAMgmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 6/7/18 8:35 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 6/7/18 10:29 AM, John Wolf wrote:
>>> On 6/7/18 7:55 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-06 22:25, John Wolf wrote:
>>>>> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always 
>>>>> ends up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to 
>>>>> the safe list?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark it as Not Junk, and Move it to the Inbox.
>>>>
>>>> Make sure that:
>>>> a) the sender is in your address book; and
>>>> b) that the boxes in Account settings - Junk Settings, the boxes in 
>>>> "Do not automatically mark..." are ticked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not believe these features exist in the Mac version. I have no 
>>> way of marking a message in my Junk folder as not junk.
>>>
>> 
>> Right click on it and select Mark > As Not Junk from the Context menu.
>> 
> 
> 
> You are a genius. I guess the Mac version has the feature afterall.

Another option is to edit columns (a small box on the right end of
 the list headers) of the email list and to add  a column with
 junk/spam flag. 

You can then flip the flag state by a single click. 



-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/8/2018 5:50:58 AM
John Wolf wrote:
> For some reason a sender is being filtered as JUNK mail and always ends 
> up in the JUNK mail folder. In TB how do I add this sender to the safe 
> list?

 From further discussion in this thread, I believe that you've found the 
necessary solution.  However, one point to emphasize -- Thunderbird's 
junk mail filter uses a Bayesian filter, and for the most part, isn't 
keyed on sender ID.

The idea of Bayesian is that if you mark something as "junk", then 
anything that's suitably similar is considered to be "also junk", and 
for anything designated as "not junk" similar messages will also be 
treated as "not junk".  As a matter of course, the filters need to be 
fed some quantity of both Junk and Not Junk to be really effective.

By "similar", that's the entire package of the message -- not just 
sender or subject line, but everything, including all headers, body and 
attachments. One significant effect of this is that if you get a message 
that's forged, where the From: line may contain a valid address of 
somebody you know, but where the rest of the message is clearly junk, 
it's entirely safe to designate that message as Junk, because the 
designation isn't keyed on the address, but the entire message. Thus, 
for future traffic that shows that address, forged traffic will get 
treated as Junk, and legitimate messages that show the same address will 
be treated as Not Junk.

Although it may be common (especially by the big web mail providers) to 
allow for whitelisting by email address, that approach doesn't work well 
for defending against forged traffic, and there is some quantity of that 
  in circulation.  The Bayesian approach is much more effective.

I believe that's the reason that Thunderbird configs don't give you the 
option of whitelisting by address -- it's not necessary, and the 
Bayesian tools (with training) can differentiate between legitimate and 
forged traffic.

Thus, if something legitimate is in the Junk folder, mark it as Not 
Junk, and that's really all you need to do.

Smith
0
NFN
6/8/2018 5:22:51 PM
On Fri Jun 08 2018 13:22:51 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), NFN Smith
<worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although it may be common (especially by the big web mail providers) to 
> allow for whitelisting by email address, that approach doesn't work well 
> for defending against forged traffic, and there is some quantity of that 
>   in circulation.  The Bayesian approach is much more effective.
> 
> I believe that's the reason that Thunderbird configs don't give you the 
> option of whitelisting by address -- it's not necessary, and the 
> Bayesian tools (with training) can differentiate between legitimate and 
> forged traffic.

Ummm... you are wrong, Thunderbird certainly does provide for
whitelisting  by address. It does this by allowing you to define Address
Books entries for which are exempted - meaning whitelisted - from spam
filtering.

One method for doing this would be to create a dedicated Address Book
called 'Whitelist', and add any email addresses you want to whitelist to it.

Or, you could simply check one or more of the ABs you already use for
exempting existing entries from spam filtering.
0
Tanstaafl
6/8/2018 6:24:38 PM
Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> Wrote in message:
>
> 
> Ummm... you are wrong, Thunderbird certainly does provide for
> whitelisting  by address. It does this by allowing you to define Address
> Books entries for which are exempted - meaning whitelisted - from spam
> filtering. [...]
> 
But the value of the address based whitelisting is questionable,
 as spam often use addresses  it thinks you have in your  address
 book.


-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/8/2018 8:01:45 PM
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On Fri Jun 08 2018 13:22:51 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), NFN Smith
> <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Although it may be common (especially by the big web mail providers) to
>> allow for whitelisting by email address, that approach doesn't work well
>> for defending against forged traffic, and there is some quantity of that
>>    in circulation.  The Bayesian approach is much more effective.
>>
>> I believe that's the reason that Thunderbird configs don't give you the
>> option of whitelisting by address -- it's not necessary, and the
>> Bayesian tools (with training) can differentiate between legitimate and
>> forged traffic.
> 
> Ummm... you are wrong, Thunderbird certainly does provide for
> whitelisting  by address. It does this by allowing you to define Address
> Books entries for which are exempted - meaning whitelisted - from spam
> filtering.
> 
> One method for doing this would be to create a dedicated Address Book
> called 'Whitelist', and add any email addresses you want to whitelist to it.
> 
> Or, you could simply check one or more of the ABs you already use for
> exempting existing entries from spam filtering.
> 

Sorry.  I went off in the wrong direction, looking at the Junk control 
settings, and forgetting about whitelisting via the Address book.

My bad.

Smith
0
NFN
6/8/2018 9:33:23 PM
On 6/8/2018 4:01 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> Wrote in message:
>>
>>
>> Ummm... you are wrong, Thunderbird certainly does provide for
>> whitelisting  by address. It does this by allowing you to define Address
>> Books entries for which are exempted - meaning whitelisted - from spam
>> filtering. [...]
>>
> But the value of the address based whitelisting is questionable,
>   as spam often use addresses  it thinks you have in your  address
>   book.

The point of whitelisting is not that you "trust" mail from the 
specified address. The purpose is to make certain that mail from that 
address NEVER gets marked as junk, so that it is impossible for mail 
from that sender to get missed.

0
Wayne
6/9/2018 1:50:00 AM
Wayne <vseerror@lehigh.edu> Wrote in message:
> On 6/8/2018 4:01 PM, Libor Striz wrote:

>> But the value of the address based whitelisting is questionable,
>>   as spam often use addresses  it thinks you have in your  address
>>   book.
> 
> The point of whitelisting is not that you "trust" mail from the 
> specified address. The purpose is to make certain that mail from that 
> address NEVER gets marked as junk, so that it is impossible for mail 
> from that sender to get missed.
> 

I understand whitelisting concept. 

I was not speaking about trust. 

Bayesian filter has to be trained by correcting both false
 positives ( marked as spam but should not)
and false negatives ( should be marked as spam but was not)

Whitelisting disables the former training, as false positives  are
 not noticed and trained. Such a way may cripple the filter
 efficiency, causing to possibly become too aggressive spam
 filter, as the agresivity is not corrected.

Btw, junk filter should be reviewed  regularly.

-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/9/2018 6:31:23 AM
On 6/9/2018 2:31 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> Wayne <vseerror@lehigh.edu> Wrote in message:
>> On 6/8/2018 4:01 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> 
>>> But the value of the address based whitelisting is questionable,
>>>    as spam often use addresses  it thinks you have in your  address
>>>    book.
>>
>> The point of whitelisting is not that you "trust" mail from the
>> specified address. The purpose is to make certain that mail from that
>> address NEVER gets marked as junk, so that it is impossible for mail
>> from that sender to get missed.
>>
> 
> I understand whitelisting concept.
> 
> I was not speaking about trust.
> 
> Bayesian filter has to be trained by correcting both false
>   positives ( marked as spam but should not)
> and false negatives ( should be marked as spam but was not)

True

> Whitelisting disables the former training, as false positives  are
>   not noticed and trained. 

No, this is not true. You can still mark a whitelisted message as junk. 
And a message marked as junk adds to the training.


> Such a way may cripple the filter
>   efficiency, causing to possibly become too aggressive spam
>   filter, as the agresivity is not corrected.
> 
> Btw, junk filter should be reviewed  regularly.
> 

0
Wayne
6/9/2018 9:53:01 AM
Wayne <vseerror@lehigh.edu> Wrote in message:
> On 6/9/2018 2:31 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Wayne <vseerror@lehigh.edu> Wrote in message:
>>> On 6/8/2018 4:01 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> 
>>>> But the value of the address based whitelisting is questionable,
>>>>    as spam often use addresses  it thinks you have in your  address
>>>>    book.
>>>
>>> The point of whitelisting is not that you "trust" mail from the
>>> specified address. The purpose is to make certain that mail from that
>>> address NEVER gets marked as junk, so that it is impossible for mail
>>> from that sender to get missed.
>>>
>> 
>> I understand whitelisting concept.
>> 
>> I was not speaking about trust.
>> 
>> Bayesian filter has to be trained by correcting both false
>>   positives ( marked as spam but should not)
>> and false negatives ( should be marked as spam but was not)
> 
> True
> 
>> Whitelisting disables the former training, as false positives  are
>>   not noticed and trained. 
> 
> No, this is not true. You can still mark a whitelisted message as junk. 
> And a message marked as junk adds to the training.

I was objecting about the opposite case of training, unmarking
 junk that is not junk, that has at least the same
 importance.

If a major part of emails has whitelisted senders, the filter may
 not be properly trained about false positives.

As a consequence, non whitelisted addresses may end incorrectly
 marked as junk more often 
than if whitelisting was not used.

-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/10/2018 6:20:42 AM
On 6/10/2018 2:20 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> Wayne <vseerror@lehigh.edu> Wrote in message:
>> On 6/9/2018 2:31 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> Wayne <vseerror@lehigh.edu> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 6/8/2018 4:01 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But the value of the address based whitelisting is questionable,
>>>>>     as spam often use addresses  it thinks you have in your  address
>>>>>     book.
>>>>
>>>> The point of whitelisting is not that you "trust" mail from the
>>>> specified address. The purpose is to make certain that mail from that
>>>> address NEVER gets marked as junk, so that it is impossible for mail
>>>> from that sender to get missed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand whitelisting concept.
>>>
>>> I was not speaking about trust.
>>>
>>> Bayesian filter has to be trained by correcting both false
>>>    positives ( marked as spam but should not)
>>> and false negatives ( should be marked as spam but was not)
>>
>> True
>>
>>> Whitelisting disables the former training, as false positives  are
>>>    not noticed and trained.
>>
>> No, this is not true. You can still mark a whitelisted message as junk.
>> And a message marked as junk adds to the training.
> 
> I was objecting about the opposite case of training, unmarking
>   junk that is not junk, that has at least the same
>   importance.
> 
> If a major part of emails has whitelisted senders, the filter may
>   not be properly trained about false positives.
> 
> As a consequence, non whitelisted addresses may end incorrectly
>   marked as junk more often
> than if whitelisting was not used.
> 

Sure. But that would be on the user - who incorrectly assumes only 
messages in the Spam folder need action, and deletes messages that are 
spam instead of marking them as spam, or the user who deletes a good 
message from the spam folder after reading it instead of marking it as 
not Junk. Is there a software solution for those issues?
0
Wayne
6/10/2018 8:11:12 AM
Wayne <vseerror@lehigh.edu> Wrote in message:
> On 6/10/2018 2:20 AM, Libor Striz wrote:

>> I was objecting about the opposite case of training, unmarking
>>   junk that is not junk, that has at least the same
>>   importance.
>> 
>> If a major part of emails has whitelisted senders, the filter may
>>   not be properly trained about false positives.
>> 
>> As a consequence, non whitelisted addresses may end incorrectly
>>   marked as junk more often
>> than if whitelisting was not used.
>> 
> 
> Sure. But that would be on the user - who incorrectly assumes only 
> messages in the Spam folder need action, and deletes messages that are 
> spam instead of marking them as spam, or the user who deletes a good 
> message from the spam folder after reading it instead of marking it as 
> not Junk. Is there a software solution for those issues?

Any web browser if used for learning. People should know tools
 they are using.

Deletion of messages in inbox or junk folder is legitimate action, 
if the message is junk-marked properly.
It is the user, not a software, who has to decide,
if any message was incorrectly marked  and to mark it correctly
for the filter to learn. 

Training Bayesian filters is on users, similarly as training
 artificial neuron networks.

Whitelisting as an older technology has place mainly for cases
 where B. filter is not implemented. 

Together with the filter, it should be used only for very
 important senders, where impact of false  positive would be much
 bigger than  impact of false negative.

 If applied massively, it affects functionality of the Bayesian
 filter by distorted learning.
-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/10/2018 11:04:46 AM
On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
[...]
> I was objecting about the opposite case of training, unmarking
>   junk that is not junk, that has at least the same
>   importance.
[...]

Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the filter, 
mark as Not Junk.

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."
0
Wolf
6/10/2018 4:52:05 PM
Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>
> 
> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the filter, 
> mark as Not Junk.

Different wording, same action.





-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/10/2018 7:56:25 PM
On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>
>>
>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the filter,
>> mark as Not Junk.
> 
> Different wording, same action.

AFAIK, different wording = different action.



-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."
0
Wolf
6/10/2018 8:42:43 PM
On 6/10/2018 4:42 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the filter,
>>> mark as Not Junk.
>>
>> Different wording, same action.
> 
> AFAIK, different wording = different action.

He means "Unmarking" messages in junk folder = "marking as not junk"
0
Wayne
6/10/2018 8:57:53 PM
On 2018-06-10 16:57, Wayne wrote:
> On 6/10/2018 4:42 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>> On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the 
>>>> filter,
>>>> mark as Not Junk.
>>>
>>> Different wording, same action.
>>
>> AFAIK, different wording = different action.
> 
> He means "Unmarking" messages in junk folder = "marking as not junk"

OK, I see. For me Unmarking = clicking on the Junk Status icon. That's 
because clicking on that icon in Inbox Marks the message as Junk.

Also, you can drag a Junk item from the junk pane to the Inbox.

So, do all three methods have the same effect? I vaguely recall reading 
somewhere that to train the filter you have to click on Mark As Not 
Junk. Clicking on the Junk Status and/or dragging back to Inbox did not 
train the filter.

I'd like a definitive answer.

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."
0
Wolf
6/10/2018 10:56:40 PM
On 6/10/2018 6:56 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2018-06-10 16:57, Wayne wrote:
>> On 6/10/2018 4:42 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the 
>>>>> filter,
>>>>> mark as Not Junk.
>>>>
>>>> Different wording, same action.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, different wording = different action.
>>
>> He means "Unmarking" messages in junk folder = "marking as not junk"
> 
> OK, I see. For me Unmarking = clicking on the Junk Status icon. That's 
> because clicking on that icon in Inbox Marks the message as Junk.
> 
> Also, you can drag a Junk item from the junk pane to the Inbox.
> 
> So, do all three methods have the same effect? I vaguely recall reading 
> somewhere that to train the filter you have to click on Mark As Not 
> Junk. Clicking on the Junk Status and/or dragging back to Inbox did not 
> train the filter.

Anything that changes the junk status of a message trains the bayes 
filter.  Neither dragging nor moving a message between folders changes 
junk status.
0
Wayne
6/11/2018 12:25:24 AM
On 2018-06-10 6:56 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2018-06-10 16:57, Wayne wrote:
>> On 6/10/2018 4:42 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the 
>>>>> filter,
>>>>> mark as Not Junk.
>>>>
>>>> Different wording, same action.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, different wording = different action.
>>
>> He means "Unmarking" messages in junk folder = "marking as not junk"
> 
> OK, I see. For me Unmarking = clicking on the Junk Status icon. That's 
> because clicking on that icon in Inbox Marks the message as Junk.
> 
> Also, you can drag a Junk item from the junk pane to the Inbox.
> 
> So, do all three methods have the same effect? I vaguely recall reading 
> somewhere that to train the filter you have to click on Mark As Not 
> Junk. Clicking on the Junk Status and/or dragging back to Inbox did not 
> train the filter.
> 
> I'd like a definitive answer.

If I remember correctly, there are actually three states('not junk', 
'unknown' and 'junk'), but Thunderbird displays the same indicator for 
not junk, and unknown. That's why the Mnenhy extension adds an indicator 
for unknown. See <http://mnenhy.mozdev.org/junk.html#icon>.

But that documentation is old, and I'm not an expert on Thunderbird junk 
filtering.

-- 
<http://ilias.ca/links>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
6/11/2018 1:42:41 AM
Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
> On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the filter,
>>> mark as Not Junk.
>> 
>> Different wording, same action.
> 
> AFAIK, different wording = different action.
> 
The same action can be described and achieved by many ways.

Are you aware of any reason, 
why resetting the junk flag 
would only move the article without 
training, when setting the flag does both?

The menu is just alternative  action leading to the same result,
 if flag column is not handy.


-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/11/2018 5:32:56 AM
Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>> On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the filter,
>>>> mark as Not Junk.
>>> 
>>> Different wording, same action.
>> 
>> AFAIK, different wording = different action.
> 
P.S. See also http://kb.mozillazine.org/Junk_Mail_Controls


-- 
Libor Striz


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
0
Libor
6/11/2018 7:53:12 AM
On 6/11/2018 3:53 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2018-06-10 15:56, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On 2018-06-10 02:20, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unmarking merely moves the message back into Inbox. To train the filter,
>>>>> mark as Not Junk.
>>>>
>>>> Different wording, same action.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, different wording = different action.
>>
> P.S. See also http://kb.mozillazine.org/Junk_Mail_Controls

And https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/thunderbird-and-junk-spam-messages

0
Wayne
6/11/2018 8:32:47 AM
Reply: