-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Michael,
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:06:27 -0700 (1:06 AM here), Michael L. Wilson [MLW] wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: MLW> I have to get off BayesIT! It learns way to slow. What do people MLW> think of SpamPal or K9? I have tried both and like both...so, MLW> what do others think? I've used SpamPal for quite some time and really like it. I've experimented with BayesIt and Bayes Filter. The plug in idea is appealing, not having to run a relay and having the spam solution more self contained. I never received the accuracy of SpamPal with either of these solutions. Not to mention the stability problems that recent BayesIt versions have had. I use the Bayesian Filter, P2P, RegExFilter and URLBody plugins with SpamPal. It never misclassifies good messages as spam and rarely misses spam. On the rare miss, I can open the reclassify window to learn the missed spam. It works very well upon initial setup. - -- Kevin Coates Dewitt, NY USA Using TB! v3.0.0.19 under Windows XP 5.1.2600 SP2 ________________________________________________________________ (see kludges for my pgp key) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFBWrsavZSrVDqOXK0RAsBsAKDqt5cuALq0JdjyJCyObaewe6yZWACdH4C7 Ru3TIE1wyRRwFrbR9Sss/4Y= =iHXd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
