Jeff Key

It works on my machine

Sponsors

My Job

My stuff

Old stuff

Useful Stuff

Spam: 0, Me: 384

I'm sold.

I tried SpamArrest on a whim after seeing the honorable Hanselman mention it a few days ago.  One word:  Wow.

I'd been using SpamNet, which is a fine service, but was really tiring of the constant Outlook alerts notifying me of new spam.  Add that to the occasionally false positives (and many false negatives) and I had to find something else.

SpamArrest works by inserting itself between your email client (which means it works with any POP3 client) and your POP3 server.  It pulls email from your mail server and only passes along email from senders that are in your “verified senders” list.  How do people get on that list?  I'm glad you asked.  There are a number of ways to populate this list yourself:

  • Import contacts from your email client
  • Manually type in email addresses
  • Add TO: addresses to the “Mailing Lists“ list.  (This is good for things like “somegroup@yahoogroups.com“, where there may be hundreds of different senders.)

The magic part is what the service is all about:  When someone that isn't on your white list sends you an email, SpamArrest sends them an email informing them that they aren't in your verified senders list.  They follow a link to the website, type in a word that's displayed in an obfuscated image and automatically add themselves to your verified senders list.  The concept behind the service is that spammers either won't get these emails because their From header is invalid, or won't go through the hassle of adding themselves to your list.  What if they do add themselves?  You can also block email addresses so they'll never come through to you.

The big gotcha (you knew there was one!) is that automated, non-spam email won't come through by itself.  This requires that you periodically check the SpamArrest web site and manually add senders of emails that have been queued waiting for approval.  This is easily done by clicking a button and becomes less of an issue over time as you add the frequent auto-emailers to your list.

Here's what my setup looks like after three or four days of use:

  • 802 emails processed
  • 418 emails forwarded to me
  • 120 verified senders
  • 9 mailing lists
  • 0 spam

So, is it worth the hassle?  I think so.  When it comes to dealing with spam, you're going to have to put in some work.  SpamArrest, so far, requires the least amount of time from me.  The best part is that I don't have all this traffic in my email client, I don't need to check for false positives every five minutes and I don't need to delete false negatives every time I check my inbox.  Not only that, but it's pretty cheap at $20/six months.

Posted: Oct 03 2003, 12:51 AM by jeffreykey | with 5 comment(s)
Filed under: ,

Comments

Matthew Reynolds said:

I recently bought a years subscription to the service.

It really very, very good.
# October 3, 2003 2:20 AM

Eric W. Bachtal said:

Having recently emailed you, I got to experience SpamArrest for the first time, and I can report that it was fine experience. I got a nice message from SpamArrest, with a personal note from you, indicating why my email needed additional attention. Their message included a link that took me to a simple page where I typed a masked graphic word, and that was it - my email was on the way. I was so impressed with the service, I went back to their site and have decided to sign up myself. A great idea well implemented.

You've probably seen this, but here's another great idea involving spam-thwarting:

http://www.mailinator.com/

Good for those one-off on-line registrations that require an email address.
# October 3, 2003 2:22 AM

julie lerman said:

hmmm... maybe i'll try that one next. Using SpamNet, but for me the problemis that Outlook still has to process all emails, which also means a) Norton has to check them b) my rules has to check them and c) spamnet has to check them. With the recent horrid huge numbers of spam (mostly the fake patch emails), it actually makes my computer hang while downloading emails. So if I can catch them BEFORE -- well that may be what I need. Thanks for the indepth review. I've certainly seen spamarrest a lot (on the receiving end).
# October 3, 2003 8:33 AM

Jeff Gonzalez said:

I find SAProxy to be even better. It is built on Spam Assassin technology. It uses a bayesian filter to weigh each email that comes in, and rewrites the header if the email is over a certain score (5.0 is the default i believe). I have only had a few false positives, mostly being related to newsletters I have signed up for, but had not allowed through yet. Best of all, it is completely free.
http://saproxy.bloomba.com
# October 3, 2003 10:05 AM

Jeff Key said:

Eric: Glad you liked it. I'm still worried that people will be offended or put off by it. Haven't had any backlash yet.

Julie: Yes! That was exactly my problem, too. I don't want that stuff anywhere near my computer.

Jeff: Sounds cool. If SpamArrest ever fails me, I'll check it out.
# October 3, 2003 2:53 PM