-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Philip,
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:51:48 +0100 (1:51 PM here), Philip Storry [PS] wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: KC>> .... I think its safe to conclude that 3rd party relay type KC>> solutions seem to offer better performance than the plug-ins.... PS> I would disagree. PS> A few posters to this list have had problems with the plugins. PS> Often, they've not marked any ham as well as marking spam, or PS> haven't marked enough of either. But those are just common reasons PS> for the enquiry - I'm not going to say that those are the only PS> reasons for bad performance of the plugins. To be fair to the plugins, I rescan a significant amount of spam and ham. I save all spam from my various accounts and rescan the last couple of months. I do the same for my received messages both personal mail and list mail. I never have to do this for SpamPal, which seems to work right out of the box. What I've noticed is even after a couple of weeks, the performance never seems to improve. At least this is my personal experience. Typically I'll get 50-60 spam/day between my various mail accounts. On the plus side, the plugins seem pretty good at not erroneously tagging ham as spam. - -- Kevin Coates Dewitt, NY USA Using TB! v3.5.24 under Windows XP 5.1.2600 SP2 ________________________________________________________________ (see kludges for my pgp key) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFCqebYvZSrVDqOXK0RAuC1AKD4Y7n9b5PVnkLLcGTMP02ufJbzrwCeMCTT adaa+TSwCLUqWv2szVQyPlI= =r21l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.5.25 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
