Hi Michael. As I mentioned, I have FULL appreciation for plug ins. You couldn't be more right about there being "right tools" already made. But that doesn't mean that many good ideas can't be brought into the app itself as an integral part of the basic function. Giving the user the option is where the beauty lies.
In reality, I hardly get any SPAM at all. Next to none, actually. If I get more than 2 in a single week, it's a lot. If I get two per day, I change my address. :-) Mostly I'm just extremely careful about where I go. A "Junk" filter would be more for the many folks that have become dependent upon such things. Not so much for me, personally. Thanks, ht ////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ On 11/21/03, Michael Lewis wrote: >tass sez: > >>Like actually putting useful tools INTO the program >>instead of everything being about plug ins. Though there are times where >>I do like to be able to choose which tool I'll use. > >You're going to find in the Mac world that this is one of the most hotly >debated things. People either love or hate the Junk Mail implementation >in Mac OS X's Mail application. On top of that, the Mac world has a long >history of loving our third-party add-ons, and when Apple incorporates >the ideas -- often ideas that were likely on the drawing board anyway -- >they're usually accused of stealing and driving third party programmers >out of business. Microsoft seems to get away with this with less, or at >least muted or accepting, criticism. > >My opinion is why put a halfway or pretty good implementation into any >application when excellent other solutions are available for that. I'd >much rather have Apple, CTM and other people work on improvements that >don't have alternatives rather than try to waste time on something that >already works well... It may cost a bit more in some cases, but it gives >me control over what I want to do without burdening the software with a >lot of things that may never be used and could slow it or make it buggy. > >Concerning the spam front, the suggested SpamSieve is one option and a >good one. If you don't even want your local machine dealing with sorting >all that possible spam, take a look at SpamCop <http://www.spamcop.net>. >It sorts out Spam before it gets to your mailbox using client reports and >SpamAssassin and some other things (which you can turn on or off as you >please). Or your internet/email provider might even have SpamAssassin >capability, so look into that. SpamCop costs $30/year but it's well worth >it to me and others who don't even want our computers bogged down sorting >this stuff much less us or our kids having to read the vulgar titles of >this stuff. > >-- >Michael Lewis >Off Balance Productions >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.offbalance.com > >
