Spam Filters

Do you need a spam filter?

While antivirus, anti-spyware and firewall applications are essential components of computer/Internet security, spam filters are not. Most commercial spam is time-wasting but not harmful, and most spam containing infections is only dangerous if you open the message or its attachments. Internet Explorer 7.0, antivirus and firewall programs all protect against phishing scams.

Most anti-spam applications require training to discern what you consider spam and what you consider legitimate mail. With training, the programs become progressively more effective at filtering without your help. Experts say that a month of training is typically required. While no anti-spam programs require that you review quarantined messages, you are likely to want to know if your program is blocking legitimate messages. Base your decision on whether the time commitment to use an anti-spam program is worthwhile versus the amount of time you currently spend deleting spam.

In the reviews we found, the best, most expensive spam filters block one legitimate message out of every 200 messages received. If that one message is important, one missed message might be one too many.

Types of spam blockers

Multiple technologies are used to filter spam. Each program or service uses one or more (sometimes all). You can also choose between a software filter, which is installed on your computer, and web-based filters which filter your mail, then forward the "good stuff" to you.

Rules-based filters require users to train the software. Most programs start with a set of default rules that label incoming mail as definitely spam, not spam or undecided. You sort through initial batches of undecided mail and determine which are unwanted. The anti-spam software then learns to create new rules so that you don't get similar spam in the future. Experts say this method can work very well, but users do need to spend time training the software. An example of when a rules-based filter might not work is when a friend writes, "I was delighted to find your message hiding among the offers for Viagra, weight-loss products and credit cards."

OnlyMyEmail is a rules-based service. Outlook, MailWasher Pro and SpamBayes use Bayesian spam filtering, a rules-based statistical method that classifies messages into categories based on probability. Outlook and MailWasher Pro also use other types of filtering.

Content-based filtering is a basic rules-based method that has been outsmarted by spammers. The method simply blocks keywords or phrases. Spammers use misspelling and similar tricks to evade content filters.

Whitelist filters use an approved-senders list (usually the contacts in your address book) to sort the good from bad. You can add more contacts to your approved list anytime. This method's inflexibility is both its strength and its weakness. New correspondents, business proposals or responses to classified ads will be classified as junk. Whitelist filters are best for those who don't get e-mail from people they don't know. CA Anti-Spam Plus CA Website Inspector 2008 (*est. $50) exclusively uses whitelist filtering. Many anti-spam programs offer the option of a whitelist in addition to other types of spam filtering. That assures you will always receive mail from the e-mail addresses in your contacts folder. Security expert Michael Cobb, writing at SearchSecurity.com (a security information website for IT professionals), says, "A major drawback of whitelists, however, is their inordinate number of false positives."

Challenge/response filters respond to messages from unknown senders. The sender must enter a code, go to the software vendor's website or go through some other hoop. Alan Hearnshaw of WhichSpamFilter.com explains, "Critics of this system claim it to be too drastic a measure and that it sends a message that 'my time is more important than yours' to the people trying to communicate with you." Challenge/response filters are usually used in conjunction with whitelist filters. SonicWALL Email Security Desktop (formerly MailFrontier Desktop) uses a challenge/response filter. Earthlink also offers the option of a challenge/response filter if you are an Earthlink ISP subscriber. In the Brockmann study, challenge/response filters produced the highest level of satisfaction by far for business customers.

Blacklist filters block specific e-mail addresses. Most blacklist filters rely on web-based databases of known spammers. You can add addresses to the blacklist, such as the company that thinks it bought the right to spam you by paying a rebate. SpamBully uses blacklist filtering.

Community-based filters depend on user contributions to assemble a list of known spammers. Once a handful of established users submit spam as junk to the software company, it's added to the database of known offenders, and no users will receive messages from that e-mail address (and sometimes that computer's IP address). This technique requires little user intervention, and legitimate mail is unlikely to be tagged as spam. Cloudmark Desktop exclusively uses community-based filtering. Other spam blockers use a regularly updated database of known spam, which blocks e-mail from the vast majority of known spammers. Google's Gmail partly uses community-based filtering.

Microsoft Outlook may be all you need

Microsoft Outlook, part of the Microsoft Office suite, is the most popular e-mail program. Outlook Express is the stripped-down free version that is bundled with all versions of Windows through Windows XP. Vista's e-mail program is called Windows Mail. According to PC World, Outlook Express does not have a spam filter, though you can set up your own filters manually. We didn't find standalone reviews of Windows Mail, but we found many reviews of Vista that include coverage of the program and its spam filtering capability.

All the Microsoft e-mail applications use a community-based filter called SmartScreen. However, the newer and more sophisticated programs have additional features. Microsoft explains that Outlook 2007 has an improved, refined ability to deal with phishing messages. New capabilities include blocking images in suspicious messages from loading (to block image-based spam). Windows Mail doesn't have those features.

According to Microsoft, "Windows Mail includes a built-in Junk Mail Filter that automatically screens e-mail to identify and separate out junk e-mail. Unlike other approaches, which require you to ‘train' a filter to correctly identify junk e-mail, Windows Mail starts identifying and separating junk mail the first time you use it, without any need for special settings or laborious feedback."

Descriptive reviews of Windows Mail are far from comprehensive, but consistently unflattering. Even Paul Thurrott, an unabashed Windows and Vista fan and blogger, is displeased with Windows Mail. On Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows, he grumbles, "Windows Vista's antivirus and anti-spam features are particularly embarrassing." This is somewhat unfair to Microsoft, as Thurrott's review is of a beta version that pre-dated the official release by months.

Thomas Greene's review for The Register is also subjective, but more thorough. Windows Mail has "half-decent junk mail controls," he opines, but the tools are awkward to use. Stephen Manes cites some data in his Forbes review. He reports, "Windows Mail is a mild reworking of Outlook Express whose big new feature is a spam filter that in my tests flagged non-spam as spam and vice versa an unacceptable 10% of the time."

In spite of the similarities in the spam filtering abilities of Microsoft's current and recent e-mail programs, Outlook receives more favorable reviews than Windows Mail. In an older PC World review, Kevin Savetz informs, "Without any training, Outlook's (2003) spam filter identified more junk mail than any other client app [we tested]: It caught 19 of the first 25 spam messages testers sent it. After testers had trained its filter, Outlook caught 94 percent of the junk."

In WhichSpamFilter.com's tests, Outlook 2003 produced a 93.61 percent accuracy rate. Alan Hearnshaw explains, "The overall average accuracy returned from our tests was not as good as similar filters we have tested, but it has to be considered that Bayesian filters only reach optimum accuracy after as much as a month of continuous use. We could see it improving toward the end of our tests."

No reviewer has published that type of performance data for Outlook 2007 yet, but Network Computing has a balanced review. Serdar Yegulalp vaguely informs that in his testing, it "does a fairly good job of trapping spam." He also likes the ability to whitelist trusted senders so their messages always get through.

According to some reviews, if you have Microsoft Office 2003 or 2007, you should definitely try Outlook's spam filtering before investing in a third-party product. One reviewer says it is all you need: detection rates are excellent and false positives are rare. The reviewer also says it's easy to set up and use. If you are dissatisfied with Outlook's filtering or you use a different e-mail program, consider the options discussed below.

Best web-based spam filters

Web-based filtering services are garnering the most favorable reviews, but haven't been evaluated by reviewers in the past year, and the strongest recommendations are old. OnlyMyEmail (*est. $4 per month) is highly recommended in reviews at PC Magazine, PC World and The Office Letter. However, all three reviews date to mid-2005. Smart Computing reviewed the service in its September 2006 issue and recommends it. even though it earns the lowest overall score of the four anti-spam tools discussed in the review. At $48 per year, OnlyMyEmail is the most expensive spam filtering option. Spam Arrest (*est. $6 per month or $45 per year) is a similar service with a comparable price for committed subscribers. In comparison, most computer-based anti-spam software includes a year of updates in the purchase price, so you'll need to subscribe each year to stay current. All web-based services offer advantages over computer-based programs. There's no need to download or install software, which means there's no drain on computer performance. Web-based spam filters are also compatible with most e-mail programs and web-based e-mail services, whereas standalone anti-spam software is often Windows only.

In PC World's review, OnlyMyEmail was tested with 3,000 mostly-junk e-mail messages. The software only allowed eleven spam messages into the inbox and only misidentified one valid message as spam. In PC Magazine's review, results were similar: Only .5 percent of spam reached the test inbox. PC Magazine calls OnlyMyEmail "near ideal." OnlyMyEmail uses a database of known spammers as well as learning techniques to filter spam.

When you set up service, you establish an OnlyMyEmail address. E-mail from up to two e-mail accounts is routed through OnlyMyEmail's servers, where it is filtered for spam. Valid mail is then forwarded to your desktop inbox. Each day, you get an e-mail report listing blocked messages. Spam messages are stored on OnlyMyEmail's servers -- they never make it to your computer. You have seven days to rescue any misidentified e-mails. You can also direct OnlyMyEmail to block or allow mail from specific domains.

OnlyMyEmail works with any POP3 or IMAP account, and it works with any desktop e-mail application. You can have your mail downloaded to your e-mail program, or you can access your mail on the web using OnlyMyEmail's webmail feature.

We found an extremely negative blog review of OnlyMyEmail from September 2007. Among the reviewer's many complaints, the only one that is likely to have validity for consumers in general is the report of several service outages. Without other recent reviews, we can't tell you how OnlyMyEmail's filtering performance and customer service might have changed in the two-and-a- half years since the effusive reviews. The one thing we know has changed is the price. The 2005 reviews all quote the cost of the service as $3 per month. It was raised to $4 in 2006, and, of course, could change any time.

Vanquish vqME 4.0 (*est. $40 per year), another web-based service, is a better value for some people. Unlike OnlyMyEmail, Vanquish vqME is a whitelist-based spam filtering system that is augmented by a sophisticated, selective challenge/response filter. The Vanquish service has only received two reviews. PC Magazine designates it as an Editors' Choice. Reviewer Neil Rubenking concludes, "For an individual, it's a great way to ensure that unwanted mail never reaches the inbox." However, he oddly fails to compare vqME with OnlyMyEmail, which he reviewed 14 months earlier. As both are designated Editors' Choices by PC Magazine, we wonder which service Rubenking prefers. As with OnlyMyEmail, favorable reviews may have contributed to a big price increase. At the time of Rubenking's review, the service only cost $25 per year.

Smart Computing gives Vanquish vqME a slightly higher score than OnlyMyEmail, but the computer-based MailFrontier Desktop is rated the best of the four anti-spam tools reviewed. However, that product has since been acquired by SonicWALL, and been made part of SonicWALL Email Security, a comprehensive e-mail security solution aimed at corporate users. If you are settled on using a web-based service, your choice between vqME and OnlyMyEmail will not be aided by existing reviews. The buying considerations are cost of service and whether rules-based or whitelist filtering is more appropriate for your use.

Spam Arrest scored highly in the Brockmann and Company survey. Its popularity with businesses is a strong endorsement, but no review compares Spam Arrest with any other service. Like Vanquish vqME, Spam Arrest uses whitelist and challenge/response filtering. Both services work with up to five existing e-mail accounts. Spam Arrest was accused of sending its own spam several years ago, but news accounts indicate the company has changed the ethical and public relations practices that tarnished its image then. Perhaps that has forced Spam Arrest to maintain its pricing while its competitors have increased theirs. OnlyMyEmail, vqME and Spam Arrest are now close in price, but Spam Arrest charges for additional services, such as telephone tech support.

British magazine Web User gives BopSpam (*est. £30 to £50 per year) a five-star rating for performance, and a four-star overall rating. The service uses Bayesian, blacklist and whitelist filtering. Users are also offered additional filtering options. As NetBop Technologies only prices the service in pounds and has servers in the U.K., it is impractical for U.S. consumers.

ClearMyMail (*est. $3.50 per month or $35 per year), another English company, offers service to U.S. customers. It receives rave reviews in the English press. Web User gives it a 5/5 rating and Computeract!ve rates it 4/5. The service only works with Outlook and Outlook Express.

ClearMyMail has no meaningful disadvantages cited in the short reviews. However, a couple of things may concern consumers. First, the company began the service in 2006. Second, it offers a 100 percent no-spam guarantee. That aggressive approach may scare anyone who cares about false positives. ClearMyMail asserts, "Each message is …passed through 18 separate spam and virus filters to correctly block all spam and virus attacks."

All these services offer free trials. All will slightly delay delivery of your e-mail. If you have more than one e-mail account, your messages from each e-mail account will not be separated. They will arrive all together.

Best computer-based spam filters

Two very different programs receive the most recommendations: MailWasher Pro 6.1 (*est. $40) and Cloudmark Desktop 5.3 (*est. $40 per year). British magazine Computeract!ve rates both programs four out of five stars, but either conducts no performance tests or fails to share the results. Past versions of both programs fared well in tests, and recent past versions of each program also received the most top ratings. MailWasher Pro has detractors, too, and its aggressive approach isn't suitable for everyone.

In an NEA Today article, Kevin Savetz recommends MailWasher Pro. Savetz claims that it is more effective than tools included in e-mail programs. Savetz also writes for PC World, and undoubtedly has personal experience with the program or knowledge of comparative testing, but he offers no further explanation for this selection.

MailWasher Pro is only available as a download. MailWasher takes a kitchen-sink approach to filtering, using whitelist, blacklist, database and Bayesian filters. In theory, the aggressive combination of methods should do an excellent job of filtering spam, but with a relatively high percentage of false positives.

Reviewers generally agree that MailWasher is easy to use and has a useful feature set. The program filters e-mail before it reaches a user's inbox. It also updates itself. MailWasher works with any e-mail program, including web-based e-mail services.

Web User publishes overall ratings and sub-category ratings for features, performance, ease of use and value. MailWasher is rated four out of five stars across the board. Reviewer Robert Irvine says, "Besides learning to identify spam based on your decisions, MailWasher uses the FirstAlert database to recognize repeat offenders. In our tests the program worked well, but the lack of a dedicated spam folder means accidentally deleted mail is lost forever."

In his Practical PC review, Kai Chandler enthuses about the features and usability of MailWasher. He is impressed that "MailWasher checks the origin of each mail against external databases of spam mailers and immediately selects them for deletion." About.com's Heinz Tschabitscher gives the program a good recommendation, but rates a handful of other programs more highly. He says, "MailWasher Pro is a highly competent, usable, secure and time-saving spam filtering tool. Combining multiple approaches, MailWasher Pro achieves a solid spam detection rate." Gizmo Richards, editor of Support Alert newsletter, favors both Cloudmark (see below) and MailWasher. He admits that "other …spam filters … offer slightly better spam detection rates than these products," but says they are too complex for average users.

Cloudmark Desktop is available in separate versions for Outlook or Outlook Express (both *est. $40). Like CA Anti-Spam (see below), this product has changed names several times. It was previously called Cloudmark SafetyBar, and before that, it was SpamNet. Cloudmark Desktop uses a community-based filter; its network of more than a million subscribers reports spam that makes it into their inboxes. Cloudmark explains, "When a user clicks the Block Spam or Block Phish buttons, Cloudmark compares this feedback with feedback from other users. If other users in the network also consider the message to be spam or fraud, then similar messages are automatically blocked in the future, for all users in the network." The drawback to this Cloudmark method is that you need to renew each year (*est. $40), so you'll have an ongoing expense for controlling spam. Otherwise, you'll lose access to the ever-growing database of known spammers.

In theory, Cloudmark should screen less spam than other types of filters, but it should allow all legitimate mail through the filter. The reviews don't quite reach a consensus, but the program generally exceeds expectations for correctly identifying spam. However, most say it sometimes blocks real messages. We used information from About.com, PC Magazine, Support Alert, the Anti-Spam Tool League, WhichSpamFilter.com and others to reach that conclusion.

Computer Shopper (UK) rates Cloudmark Desktop a Best Buy. Simon Edwards says, "Previously we've been suspicious about the ongoing effectiveness of such collaboration systems, but Cloudmark's has worked well." Yet, he implies that he'd prefer a cheaper alternative. According to About.com's Heinz Tschabitscher, "Cloudmark Desktop is a great and easy to use junk and phishing mail solution with an excellent spam detection rate and an even better record of avoiding false positives."

WhichSpamFilter.com's review by Alan Hearnshaw is dated, but informative; he concludes, "Cloudmark SafetyBar is a very effective solution that requires virtually no interaction from the user. In our tests, it returned a very impressive accuracy rate (one of the best we have seen) of over 96%." He also comments on the high price, however.

Highly regarded anti-spam expert John Graham-Cumming developed the free POPFile program and compiled the now-dated Anti-Spam Tool League Table. The table shows that Cloudmark produced the best result in filtering spam among consumer programs, but only did an average job in letting legitimate messages into the inbox. In PC Magazine's also dated tests, Cloudmark let about five percent of spam and all real mail get through the filter. Cloudmark is a good choice for people who belong to newsgroups or conduct online business. Its database method of filtering ensures that a question from an eBay bidder won't be shuttled into the spam folder as it would with a whitelist filter.

The new CA Anti-Spam Plus CA Website Inspector 2008 (*est. $50) has received very little feedback so far, but the much cheaper CA Anti-Spam 2007 was rated as the best spam filtering tool by four reviewers. It was also rated as the worst by a couple of reviewers. It is a pure whitelist filter, which explains the extreme swings of opinion. This product used to be known as Qurb until CA (which was then named Computer Associates) acquired the company. CA has added software, renamed the program and raised the price this year.

CA Anti-Spam is recommended in reviews for people with small volumes of desired e-mail from a small circle of known correspondents. The program is well suited for children or retirees who are new to computing and might damage their systems by opening spam.

CA Anti-Spam works as a plug-in with Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express. Installation is simple; you don't need to configure anything, import addresses or train the program. It only permits mail from people in your Outlook or Outlook Express contacts. CA states that it "automatically updates your list of approved senders as you send and receive messages, or as you periodically review and accept quarantined messages." The problem with having to review quarantined messages is that it defeats the purpose of filtering and sorting them.

A whitelist filter can be expected to block 100 percent of spam, but it will also block all legitimate mail from unknown addresses. Most reviews understate the risks of whitelist filters. People often change e-mail addresses, and many people have more than one e-mail address. As ISPs are acquired by bigger companies or merge with others, addresses involuntarily change. People switch ISPs to gain better service, a lower price or an upgrade to broadband. The work e-mail addresses of your family members and friends may not be listed in your contacts. If your niece gets your e-mail address from her mother, her message to you will be blocked, and you may not recognize her "handle" in your quarantined messages folder. The same situation applies if an old college buddy gets your address from a mutual friend and tries to write.

If you decide that a whitelist filter is most appropriate for your usage, CA Anti-Spam is the consensus favorite among reviewers. ChoiceMail One 4.203 (*est. $40) is also recommended in reviews. ChoiceMail One combines whitelist and challenge/response filtering.

Allume SpamCatcher 4.0 (*est. $30) is highly recommended in a couple of reviews, but is an also-ran in others. SpamCatcher 4.0 caught 72 percent of spam, but correctly identified all the real e-mail in Computer Shopper's (UK) tests. For users who are more concerned about false positives than aggressive, but less discriminate filtering, it may be a good alternative.

Ella for Spam Control (*est. $30) earns a top recommendation from Smart Computing magazine. Jennifer Farwell doesn't cite performance data, but rates performance as a four out of five. She says, "Ella does what it does well, but it may take some time to complete training (and you may need to help)." Farwell notes that you can use the free version of the program, but you will be subjected to advertising. Separate versions of this Bayesian filter are available for Outlook or Outlook Express. However, versions that work with Outlook 2007 and Windows Mail are in beta at press time. Tschabitscher also likes Ella, but cites the limitation of compatible e-mail programs as a weakness.

Free spam blockers

Most reviewers say free spam tools do not work as well as commercial anti-spam software and services, and their tests confirm a lower degree of accuracy. The exception is Heinz Tschabitscher, About.com's Guide to E-mail. In his review, POPFile 1.0 (http://popfile.sourceforge.net/), a free program, is ranked number one -- even over commercial anti-spam software. Tschabitscher rates it higher than an expensive web-based enterprise service called Death2Spam. Heinz Tschabitscher's strong review makes a compelling case that POPFile is the best free program.

In separate OSWeekly articles, Matt Hartley and Gundeep Hora recommend POPFile. Hartley has used POPFile for years, and offers a detailed explanation of how to use the program. Hora says POPFile is also a personal favorite, and he recommends SpamBayes as well.

POPFile was developed by John Graham-Cumming (http://www.jgc.org/). Several thousand people have downloaded it from BetaNews (http://www.betanews.com). POPFile receives overwhelmingly favorable reviews from site members; several say it is the most accurate program they have used. Users of CNet's Download.com also rate the program highly. Tschabitscher does admit that POPFile can tax a computer's CPU and RAM.

POPFile uses Bayesian filtering, which must be "trained" to recognize what is and isn't spam. While commercial programs such as MailWasher and SpamBully are partially pre-trained, POPFile is not. You will have to make a time investment before the program is usable. The open-source program works with Linux and Macintosh operating systems as well as with Windows. Installation and setup instructions are complex. The process might be intimidating for many.

We found reviews of many free spam filters, and each has champions and detractors. POPFile and SpamBayes are most recommended, and the former was upgraded in December. Gizmo Richards, editor of Support Alert newsletter, says, "Most free spam filters are way too complex to set up and use." He recommends Bayesian filters only for experienced users, or at least people who are willing to make the time investment to do the required training. POPFile and SpamBayes are the best Bayesian filters, he says. For inexperienced users, Richards believes the free version of MailWasher is the best choice. However, we found little support elsewhere for the free version of MailWasher. In an older PC World article, Kevin Savetz picks SpamBayes as the best free spam filter.

About.com's Heinz Tschabitscher chooses eXpurgate and Spamihilator 0.9.9.37 as the second and third best free spam filters. Google's Gmail and Mozilla Thunderbird offer integrated spam filters. We found favorable reviews of both and their junk mail filtering capabilities. They are viable alternatives to Outlook Express or Windows Mail, but lack the multi-faceted functionality of Outlook. However Gmail has been extensively revised recently. See the ConsumerSearch report on webmail for more information.

Anti-spam software for Mac and Linux

Web-based services like OnlyMyEmail, Spam Arrest, Vanquish vqME and BopSpam are compatible with any operating system. As there is nothing to download, users can set up an account and have mail filtered and sent to their e-mail application. SpamBayes is open-source based, but developers say it will only work directly in Windows.

Some standalone software is Windows-only, but separate versions of MailWasher Pro are available for Macintosh and Unix/Linux. The cross-platform version of the free program POPFile will work with any operating system.

Apple Mail and Entourage, two of Apple's desktop mail utilities, include anti-spam filters that users may customize. Both are content-based filters that need to learn what users consider to be spam. Apple Mail is tested by Consumer Reports magazine.

Important Features: Spam filters

Before paying for anti-spam software, make sure it is compatible with your e-mail program and Internet mail provider. Check to see if your service provider offers you POP3, IMAP or another access protocol, and make sure that the filter you choose will work with that type of e-mail program. See our Comparison Chart.

Many spam filters do not work natively with AOL, which uses its own proprietary mail system, but AOL now lets users configure AOL as POP3 mail. That makes AOL compatible with more spam blockers than in the past. Web-based e-mail such as Yahoo and Hotmail can also be tricky. See our Comparison Chart of the top-rated programs for compatibility information.

Before choosing a spam blocker:

• Check with your ISP. Most major Internet service providers already offer some kind of spam blockers. Experts say that they work to varying degrees, catching 40 to 80 percent of junk mail. MSN Hotmail allows users to build an approved-senders list and filters out any message from an unknown address. Earthlink has similar features, with a challenge/response authentication system to handle messages from addresses not on the approved list. Some applications, like Microsoft Outlook, have many spam filtering options. A primer on how to use existing tools to filter out spam is available from PC World (see Best Research below). Reviewers say your best bet is to try tools you already have before buying separate anti-spam software.

• Verify compatibility with your e-mail program. Most integrated spam filters only work with Outlook and Outlook Express. They don't support alternative e-mail clients like Eudora or Mozilla's Thunderbird. Web-based spam blockers like OnlyMyEmail can work with almost any e-mail client.

Our Consensus Report shows how many times products are top-ranked by reviewers included in our
All The Reviews Reviewed chart.

# of Picks	Model (With Retailer Links)	Details from Amazon.com
3	POPFile 1.0.0 (free)	-
2	MailWasher Pro 6.1 (*est. $40)	-
2	Cloudmark Desktop 5.3/3.2.2 (*est. $40)	-
2	Allume SpamCatcher 4.0 (*est. $30)	details
1 each	ClearMyMail, Death2Spam, Ella for Spam Control, eXpurgate, MailWasher (free), Sendio, Spam Cube, Spam Arrest, SpamBayes, SPAMfighter Pro v6, Spamihilator 0.9.9.37, SpamSieve, Windows Mail Junk Filter , OnlyMyEmail, Vanquish vqME, CA Anti-Spam

Due to a dearth of reviews in the past couple of years, we found few recommendations for current versions of many programs. MailWasher Pro and Cloudmark Desktop have been favorites of reviewers for years, and continue to receive the most favorable reviews. The two programs aren't similar. Cloudmark is a community-based filter; it screens e-mail identified as spam by its large community of users. MailWasher uses all the other methods of filtering.

POPFile is clearly the favorite free program of reviews. They site reasons why it isn't for everybody. Its Bayesian filter requires a time commitment to train. It's more complex to use than the best commercial programs, and support is limited to other users. There have been no reviews yet of the very latest version, but CA Anti-Spam is most highly regarded whitelist filter, though it is not without its detractors. OnlyMyEmail continues as the top rated web-based spam filter despite a price increase.

Sponsored links