Sh'mae tbudl-bounces,
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, at 18:55:40 [GMT -0400] (or 23:55 in Wales)
regarding 'SpamPAl' you wrote:
AR>> DNSBL's is the main thing - the bat can filter on various things
AR>> but its retroactive - SpamPal is a bi more pro active
KC> I guess I don't see the advantage as spam is spam and in either case
KC> it ends up in the same folder, whether tagged by a DNSBL list or not.
KC> The disadvantage, as I mentioned, is that sometimes you get mail
KC> tagged as spam erroneously if a person happens to be legitimate and
KC> residing on a DNSBL flagged server. You also have to run a 3rd party
KC> program that needs to be updated periodically, ties up more system
KC> resources, to achieve the same net result. Simply using The Bat's
KC> built in capabilities seems more streamlined. I've gone both routes,
KC> but this is what I've found works for me. In either case, it seems
KC> ridiculous that we all have to jump these hoops in order to eliminate
KC> unwanted, unrequested junk mail. I hate spam. :(
As someone who's domain is tagged in SPEWS because of someone else, I actually
disagree strongly. SPEWS is a wonderful deterrent and I think using DNSBL's is a
much better way then relying on filtering on rules.....
I'd like to see TB! do its own lookup of DNSBL's and then it would be the
ULTIMATE email client - so hint hint Ritlabs........! ;-)
As I have a Dual Piii system with 640mb of ram system resources isn't an issue
for me!
a
--
pgp key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] O I'd rather play guitar....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /|\ 09:34, 21 September 2002
(o-"-¬
http://new-wales.net / \ Adam Rykala
When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled.
________________________________________________
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
