http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4047
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-13 00:12 ------- Outlook also has a preview pane, just like the other applications you mention. It's just that Outlook has another feature called AutoPreview (formerly "3- line preview") in addition to the preview pane. The AutoPreview is much, much more efficient than the preview pane. Thunderbird and Outlook Express (both of which I've used) lack this feature. I haven't used Eudora. On my medium-size screen in Outlook, I can see a preview for 14 messages at a time. I don't have to click on each one to see the previews. If they're all spam, I shift-click on the bottom one (since the top one is selected initially) and delete. I repeat this, deleting 14 at a time instead of 1 at a time. This is an advantage of Outlook, not a disadvantage. Maybe you don't get as much spam as I do, so you're not bothered by having to delete spam messages one at a time. But, I think you're missing the point. This isn't about Outlook vs. Thunderbird. It's not about what I need. As I said, I already reconfigured SpamAssassin to meet my own personal needs. *HUMANS* and only humans are the ones who have to figure out if the message really is spam. HUMANS have to skip over the same text over and over again. If you only get one spam a week, then it's irrelevant. If you blindly auto-delete messages SpamAssassin marks as spam (trusting that there are no false positives), then it's also irrelevant. But for those people who get a lot of spams, we should make it as easy as possible to determine if the message is spam or not. The explanation that it might be spam isn't what you need. It's certainly not the detailed content analysis that would scare any normal user. It's the sender, the subject, and the body. Those should be the most prominent items visible in the resulting message. It's not rocket science -- it's just understanding users. All of us who are discussing this issue are experts. If we want products like this to be usable by non-experts, we have to think about their needs, not our own. And, believe me, this minor issue we're talking about here isn't even close to what we we would need to do if we really wanted to have non-experts feel confident in using SpamAssassin. Maybe I'm off base -- maybe we don't want SpamAssassin to be usable by non-experts and we don't want ISPs to enable it for their non-expert customers. If that's the case, by all means just let me know and I'll shut up. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
