Spamsieve is now working beautifully. Thanks for the ideas. What made it work? One of these two things (done simultaneously so I can't say which was the magic touch)
1. I deleted the extra copy of SS that was downloaded with PM5 2. Under Spam:Evaluate I changed the setting from "all conditions are met" to "any condition is met". The conditions are: from/send is not in address from/send is not in previous to or cc does not use your The action is 'evaluate spam rating' Spam:Evaluate is my very first filter, followed by Spam:actions. It seems to be applying all the filters that come afterwards well (list mail, add to address book, etc.) Gunnar Madsen >I had some initial trouble with Spamsieve under PM5, however it's now >working okay and I have *not* had to set my SPAM: Evaluation filter to >'Always'. It is set to 'Sender is not in address book', as set by the >Spam Filter Assistant. > >The problem turned out to be the fact that I didn't notice that there was >a version of SpamSieve in the PM5 folder that I downloaded (makes sense I >guess since the download process is separate from the license purchasing >process). Evidently the system was having difficulty deciding which copy >of SS to send the message to and so the message was falling between two >stools. > >Deleting the version of Spam Sieve that was in the PM folder solved the >problem. >Hope this helps; > >Rick > >-- >G5 2GHz x2 :: 2GB RAM :: 10.3.2 :: PM 5.0b12 :: 3 pane mode > >-- >Original message: >Received from Andy Fragen on 30/5/04 at 10:18 pm > >>Is your [spam: evalutate] filter set to [always]? >> >>-- >>Andy Fragen >> >>On Sun, May 30, 2004, Gunnar Madsen said: >> >>>I'd had spamsieve for a couple of weeks with the 4.x version of PM, and >>>it was working beautifully. I've upgraded to PM 5.0, and something's not >>>right now. >>> >>>Only 1/3 to 1/2 of spam is identified correctly - the rest is going in my >>>inbox. I dutifully mark them all as spam, and when I check the stats in >>>SS, it seems to be adding the messages to the corpus, but it rarely >>>claims any of them as false positives, and trumpets its performance as >>>95% or more. >>> >>>I must be doing something wrong - but what? I've tried all kinds of >>>variations with the spam filter assistant, and with the SS preferences. TIA > >
