PGP 9/OS X 10.4.1/PowerMail 5.1

[John Keegan]

Has anyone used the new PGP 9 with PowerMail in Tiger? The old
Applescripts for encryption and decryption don't seem to work on this
new version of PGP...

-- 
John Keegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://RackShare.com

Apple Address importing

[Rick Lecoat]

Just an idea I'm throwing out to the group, but I synch my PM address
Book to the Apple one (with the Apple AB as the master -- no return
synching, that got messy). However, not every contact in my Apple
address book has an email address, yet PM imports them anyway -- so the
PM address book has a lot of entries that PM can make no use of. 

Would it be possible to have PM import/synch ONLY those Apple AB
addresses that have content in an email field? Maybe this wouldn't
appeal to everyone, so perhaps a check-box in the Synchronisation prefs
would be the best option.

If I'm missing something obvious and people do find a use for non-email
addresses being in the PM address book, then I'm happy to be called a
fool on this.

Rick 

-- 
G5 2GHz x2  ::  2GB RAM  ::  10.4  ::  PM 5.2b4  ::  3 pane mode

Re: Spamsieve Changing Behaviour (?)

[Giovanni Andreani]

>...Many spam those which should had been caught are now missed, while a few
>legit ones are marked SPAM and sent to Spam folders almost every day.


>- Hiro

Hiro, I can confirm the same thing happening to me to

Giovanni

Re: Spamsieve Changing Behaviour (?)

[Giovanni Andreani]

>>There are also a number of members from a yahoo group which 
>>are regularly labeled with a minimum spam rate. After marking 
>>them as good, SS keeps marking them with a slight spam rate.
>
>If the yahoo group filter is before the SpamSieve filters and files them
>into their proper destination, do you have "Don't apply subsequent
>filters to this message" checked?
>
>Chris
>-- 
Thank you Chris,

No, the SpamSieve filter is before any other filter

Giovanni

Re: Spamsieve Changing Behaviour (?)

[Anthony Sanna]

>Many spam those which should had been caught are now missed, while a few
>legit ones are marked SPAM and sent to Spam folders almost every day.

For months, mine has been doing this.  It was almost like going back to
day one.

Tony
-- 
Anthony R. Sanna
SACO Foods, Inc.
1-800-373-7226
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Spamsieve Changing Behaviour (?)

[Michael Lewis]

Michael Tsai sez:

>
>> It'll be interesting to see how this holds up as I run it more and the
>> corpus and rules grow. Maybe it would be a good thing to rebuild the
>> corpus and rules once a year?
>
>It's not necessary or particularly helpful to clean out the rules,  
>though you can if you want. Rebuilding the corpus every year or so  
>(depending on how many messages you receive) *is* useful, though. If  
>you've got training tips enabled in SpamSieve, it will tell you when  
>to consider doing that.
>

Thanks for the info! I'll keep it in mind as the year date nears next
February. Or try to keep it in mind for that far away. :)

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Re: Spamsieve Changing Behaviour (?)

[Michael Tsai]

On May 17, 2005, at 10:22 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

>> in the last four weeks SS has been changing spam ratings to messages
>> coming from historical senders which have never been identified as
>> spammers and now, they  suddenly are.
>
> I am glad I am not alone!  I reported this a month ago, which seems to
> coincide with yours.  Mine started roughly around OSX10.3.9 release  
> time, tho.

I don't think I have any messages from you on that subject. I try to  
follow the list, but sometimes miss messages. If you want to be  
guaranteed a response, please write to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> Many spam those which should had been caught are now missed, while  
> a few
> legit ones are marked SPAM and sent to Spam folders almost every day.

The best thing to do in a situation like this is to look at  
SpamSieve's log (or ask me to do so). It will tell you which messages  
it predicted to be spam or good, and why. And it will tell you which  
messages it was trained with and whether it recognized them as false  
negatives or positives. In most cases where there are a lot of  
"misclassifications", the log--which represents SpamSieve's view of  
the world--doesn't agree with what you've observed in the mail  
program. This indicates a configuration problem (e.g. with the  
filters in the mail program) rather than an accuracy problem and is  
generally straightforward to correct.


On May 17, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Michael Lewis wrote:

> Maybe this isn't the list to ask. SpamSieve seems its the culprit here
> and it may be better to check the SpamSieve site or list. Here is
> information about subscribing to the SpamSieve Talk list:  lists.c-command.com/listinfo.cgi/spamsieve-talk-c-command.com>.

I try to keep tech support off the mailing list.

> It'll be interesting to see how this holds up as I run it more and the
> corpus and rules grow. Maybe it would be a good thing to rebuild the
> corpus and rules once a year?

It's not necessary or particularly helpful to clean out the rules,  
though you can if you want. Rebuilding the corpus every year or so  
(depending on how many messages you receive) *is* useful, though. If  
you've got training tips enabled in SpamSieve, it will tell you when  
to consider doing that.

-- 
Michael Tsai