Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?
Thanks.
- Winston
Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:24:45 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?
not directly. I use TB sometime for testing or for imap.
TB has some advantages, like a GnuPGP Plugin, a bit better imap
implementation and html mail, if one likes that blinky
Exactly. That's why the printing problem is so glaring a defect.
- Winston
Winston, if you jump over the html issue, PM is one of the best, if not
THE best mail-client for the Mac.
And I recently tested them all, because I had to implement a mail-client
in a database.
Thanks and all the best
Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said
Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?
Yes, I ran both together for a month or two. I am now running PowerMail alone.
Thunderbird: free PM: costs $
Thunderbird: shows html or pictures according to your preferences by each
folder/account.
PM: must choose
On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Barbara Needham wrote:
Spam: SpamSieve works seamlessly with PowerMail. As far as I can
see, it
does not work with Thunderbird.
SpamSieve 2.6 does work with Thunderbird. However, the accuracy of
the spam filtering will be a bit higher if you use it with
Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:59:48 -0700 schrieb/wrote Barbara Needham:
Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said
Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?
Yes, I ran both together for a month or two. I am now running PowerMail
alone.
Thunderbird: free PM: costs $
Thunderbird: shows html or pictures
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm -0700, Barbara Needham wrote:
I prefer text e-mails so that is another factor with me pro PowerMail.
I don't think any of the people asking for better HTML support are
saying they _prefer_ HTML mail; simply that they have to live with
receiving it.
--
TimH
...
Great filter, Mr. Gates. Why don't you hire Mike Tsai.
I seem to recall a scene like this in The Empire Strikes Back.
Don't do it Mike Tsaiwalker! :D
Chris
--
Good for you. However, modem users would still be paying for the extra
connection time. Mailserver operators and Internet providers would still
be paying for the bandwidth, temp storage that spam generates, even if
everyone owned a copy of spamsieve. Guess who's paying for all of that in
the end?
At Sunday, September 14, 2003, 18.37 CET, Mikael Byström pmdisc-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about mobile mail? Is there a spamsieve or similar for your phone or
Palm?
Don't talk about -- when paying per kB and using the mobile phone's slow
connection and getting hundreds of spam mails (or
Michael Tsai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me see -- I replaced both application and scripts, allowed
SpamSieve
to update the corpus, then reset it. I then imported some seed spam and
retrained with a few dozen good/bad messages to the corpus.
I think that's the problem There are more than
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 10:02 AM, Janusz Buda wrote:
Let me see -- I replaced both application and scripts, allowed
SpamSieve
to update the corpus, then reset it. I then imported some seed spam and
retrained with a few dozen good/bad messages to the corpus.
I think that's the
Scott at HobbyLink:
Not only that, but Michael Tsai is actively developing the program,
and very responsive.
not long after...
Michael Tsai:
There's no POP locking problem with SpamSieve because PowerMail is what
downloads the messages.
aob_ml - Check it out! There's your active developer
Michael Tsai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 11:37 PM, Janusz Buda wrote:
Ever since updating to PowerMail 4.2 and SpamSieve 2.0 the PM filters
have been setting about 90% of incoming mail (both spam and good) to
Label Priority No. 7, with no recognizable
aob_ml sez:
No I haven't already decided, I'm playing devils advocate here. And I'm
waiting for some point to come in and convince me.
The thing is that mail clients are an incredibly personal preference, so
nothing anyone says is likely going to convince you. People try mail
clients until they
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 8:15 am -0400, aob_ml wrote:
Thankfully I run my own domain, and have been able to run some filtering
at that level.
Maybe SpamAssassin would be a better option for you?
When I mentioned that $25 for SpamSieve was a deal breaker, it's not that
$25 is a lot of money,
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 11:37 PM, Janusz Buda wrote:
Ever since updating to PowerMail 4.2 and SpamSieve 2.0 the PM filters
have been setting about 90% of incoming mail (both spam and good) to
Label Priority No. 7, with no recognizable pattern.
I noticed that the SpamSieve
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 08:15 AM, aob_ml wrote:
The problem with the external filters is the obvious poplock problem,
when the filter tries to connect at the same time.
There's no POP locking problem with SpamSieve because PowerMail is what
downloads the messages.
--
Michael
Austin,
I expect stability
I had this problem for some time that PowerMail crashed rather often.
After using the built in features to compact the database and rebuilding
the index, the problem disappeared. Now PowerMail is running for months
without any crash under Mac OS X 10.2.6.
AppleScript
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 2:21 pm +0900, Scott at HobbyLink Japan wrote:
Whether $25 is a lot of money or not for SpamSieve is something only you
can decide, but let me offer this: I'd be quite surprised if anybody
else's (free or built-in) spam system worked as well as it does. Not
only that,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003, it is attributed to aob_ml to have said:
but I expect stability in
return, which I have never really gotten.
This I don't get. What OS you working on? Here on MOSX, PM has never
once crashed in the half-year I have been using it...
Do have one Q about T-Bird: how does
Judi Sohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:20:52 -0600 Bill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
I have to agree, if you get too much spam, get SpamSieve period.
And here's another vote. Shortly after I downloaded SpamSieve 2.0
(upgrade) I wiped out my corpus as recommended and used my
SpamSieve ($25) vs. Free. There's the breaker there. Seems like I might
be throwing good money after bad. That and it is a kludge in this day
and age where nearly every other mail app has some spam filtering.
Performance isn't an issue on my hardware.. Speaking of which I can run
Thunderbird
Thunderbird Cons:
Unknown Future/Not Fully developed
Open Source No AppleScript (and
unlikely in at least the near future)
I took a quick peak at thunderbird and as cool it might seem, there are
definite points why I personally would not switch: don't think the
interface elegant nor really
Thunderbird Cons:
Unknown Future/Not Fully developed
Open Source
No AppleScript (and unlikely in at least the near future)
That last one is a fatal flaw for me.
With AppleScript, you can add features and shortcuts to a program and
customize it as you want. You mention as a con of PM that it
This is strange indeed.
I cannot remember the last time Powermail failed on me. I won't say it
hasn't, but never where it doesn't start up right again.
I like powermail because i hate HTML with all it's dancing garbage.
I do not find an irregularity in the updates, Skins don't are not
terribly
Okay, so I've been a *paid* user of Powermail 4 for I don't know, better
then 6 months. And I've been fairly happy. However Thunderbird has been
coming on strong, and I've installed it on a ton of friends computers,
and they've been totally thrilled. So here it is, I hate to give up on
27 matches
Mail list logo
