I DON'T use spamsieve. I simply open my mailbox using webmail (squirrelmail) and "select all" the messages. Then I scroll down, unchecking the ones I want to keep. Then I click delete. Then I download. This gives me visual control all the time and it is very fast to do. I can skim through 100 messages in about 2 minutes and pick out the 1 or 2 that I want to read. I have squirrel mail set up to move them to a trash file first before they are gone forever, so if I "oops" all is not lost.
> Frank Mitchell sez: > >>I suspect these are intended to overload programs which work like >>SpamSieve with "millions" of random 'good' words. If there are enough of >>them they could eventually render SS ineffective. Your experience seems >>to confirm this. >> >>For this reason, I simply delete such random word messages rather than do >>a "Mark as Spam". >> >>That's my theory anyway 8^) > > That was my theory, too. I went to the SpamSieve website and checked > forums, and the general consensus there was to continue to mark even > these kinds of messages as spam. So I have. On the plus side, more > messages like that get caught by SpamSieve. On the minus side there are > so many of them, I don't think I notice a difference until I do actual > counts. :) > > I'll bite the bullet and begin saving up spam messages soon and then > remake SpamSieve's corpus. It should take about 9-10 days for me to get > 1000 spams to index. Ugh. > > Now, if I could only find a way to automatically trash all the political > mail my father sends to me but save his good messages. :) > > -- > Michael Lewis > Off Balance Productions > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.offbalance.com > > >
