Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Tim Hodgson]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm -0700, Barbara Needham wrote:

>I prefer text e-mails so that is another factor with me pro PowerMail.

I don't think any of the people asking for better HTML support are
saying they _prefer_ HTML mail; simply that they have to live with
receiving it.
-- 
TimH

PowerMail 5.5.2 (build 4475) | OS X 10.4.8 | PowerBook FW/500 | 1GB RAM

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Matthias Schmidt]

Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:59:48 -0700 schrieb/wrote Barbara Needham:

>Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said
>
>>Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?
>
>Yes, I ran both together for a month or two. I am now running PowerMail
alone.
>
>Thunderbird: free PM: costs $
>
>Thunderbird: shows html or pictures according to your preferences by each
>folder/account.
>PM: must choose to show html [or choose in preferences]. I keep it off
>and decide to show on individual basis. the html rendering is much better
>than it used to be.

and it's better than TBs rendering.

>
>Thunderbird & PM: both have space bar read through mail and go to next
>mail. If run out of mail in folder, TB will ask to go to next folder. 
>
>PowerMail: search function tops all. I can always find a mail I'm looking
>for with even a vague remembrance of what it is.
>
>Filters: Thunderbird is pretty good at this but PowerMail is better, with
>ease of setting up filters. 
>
>Spam: SpamSieve works seamlessly with PowerMail. As far as I can see, it
>does not work with Thunderbird.

the last version does.

Thanks and all the best

Matthias

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Michael Tsai]

On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Barbara Needham wrote:

Spam: SpamSieve works seamlessly with PowerMail. As far as I can  
see, it

does not work with Thunderbird.


SpamSieve 2.6 does work with Thunderbird. However, the accuracy of  
the spam filtering will be a bit higher if you use it with PowerMail.


--
Michael Tsai 

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Barbara Needham]

Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said

>Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?

Yes, I ran both together for a month or two. I am now running PowerMail alone.

Thunderbird: free PM: costs $

Thunderbird: shows html or pictures according to your preferences by each
folder/account.
PM: must choose to show html [or choose in preferences]. I keep it off
and decide to show on individual basis. the html rendering is much better
than it used to be.

Thunderbird & PM: both have space bar read through mail and go to next
mail. If run out of mail in folder, TB will ask to go to next folder. 

PowerMail: search function tops all. I can always find a mail I'm looking
for with even a vague remembrance of what it is.

Filters: Thunderbird is pretty good at this but PowerMail is better, with
ease of setting up filters. 

Spam: SpamSieve works seamlessly with PowerMail. As far as I can see, it
does not work with Thunderbird.

PM: has that 2 gb limit but not counting attachments. I'm not too close
yet, with mail for about 4 years. Other people have larger databases
which can be a problem.

I prefer text e-mails so that is another factor with me pro PowerMail.


-- 
Barbara Needham

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Winston Weinmann]

Exactly. That's why the printing problem is so glaring a defect.

- Winston

>Winston, if you jump over the html issue, PM is one of the best, if not
>THE best mail-client for the Mac.
>And I recently tested them all, because I had to implement a mail-client
>in a database.
>
>Thanks and all the best
>
>Matthias

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Matthias Schmidt]

Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:24:45 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:

>Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?

not directly. I use TB sometime for testing or for imap.
TB has some advantages, like a GnuPGP Plugin, a bit better imap
implementation and html mail, if one likes that blinky pinky stuff.
But it always feels like a beta-version, PM is much more stable.
About search I can't say anything, because I do most of my mail-stuff
with PM and keep all the mails in the PM databases. I also don't know
how TB behaves with big mbox files. But if it's still as it was with
Netscape (OK, that's a long time ago), then PM is incomparable better.
Stability and search is for me quite important, because I quite often
look for some information in some mails and my mailapp is one of the
most important tools in my daily work. Imho search is one of the big
pluses of PM. I also like the simple and clean GUI from PM better than
the one from TB.

all the best

Matthias

PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Winston Weinmann]

Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?

Thanks.

- Winston

Re: Powermail vs. Thunderbird (off topic)

[C. A. Niemiec]

>...
>Great filter, Mr. Gates.  Why don't you hire Mike Tsai.

I seem to recall a scene like this in "The Empire Strikes Back."

Don't do it Mike Tsaiwalker!  :D

Chris
-- 

Re: Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Scott at HobbyLink Japan]

>Good for you. However, modem users would still be paying for the extra
>connection time. Mailserver operators and Internet providers would still
>be paying for the bandwidth, temp storage that spam generates, even if
>everyone owned a copy of spamsieve. Guess who's paying for all of that in
>the end?
>What about mobile mail? Is there a spamsieve or similar for your phone or
>Palm?

I know there are costs like this, but if everybody was getting as little
spam as I am, even if the spammers were still churning it out, they will
eventually stop because it will become an ineffective means of
advertising.  Spam is very cheap to send, yes, but not free.

My main point, however, is that costs aside, spam is far from making the
Internet and/or e-mail "unusable" as some media critics are fond of
suggesting.  If more and more ISPs start using filters like this on their
servers, preventing people (modem users) from having to download it in
the first-place, it will help even more.

I just have to cringe when I check my Hotmail account; perhaps the
world's highest concentration of spam.  The mighty Microsoft claims to
have some kind of spam filter there, and yes, a lot of it goes straight
to the junk folder, but I still routinely get mail there which has
undisguised words for human genitals boldly included in the mail subject.
 Great filter, Mr. Gates.  Why don't you hire Mike Tsai.

---

Scott T. Hards
President
HobbyLink Japan (www.hlj.com)

Re: Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Max Gossell]

At Sunday, September 14, 2003, 18.37 CET, Mikael Byström  wrote:

>What about mobile mail? Is there a spamsieve or similar for your phone or
>Palm?

Don't talk about -- when paying per kB and using the mobile phone's slow
connection and getting hundreds of spam mails (or even spam headers)
downloaded, the concept of "mobile mail" is almost destroyed. I have to
have my permanent computer downloading all mail, letting SpamSieve and
some 100 PM filter do their job, Then, the final filter forwards what's
left to my "mobile account".

Should my desktop computer ever go down when travelling, I'm lost. All
thanks to spam...

Max G

Re: Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Mikael Bystr]

Scott, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>I see all the whining and hand-wringing in the media about how spam is
>"destroying the Internet" and costing billions in lost time, etc.  And
>everytime I think, "if these people just bought SpamSieve, we wouldn't
>have stories in the media like this."  It honestly has made spam a total
>non-issue for me.

Good for you. However, modem users would still be paying for the extra
connection time. Mailserver operators and Internet providers would still
be paying for the bandwidth, temp storage that spam generates, even if
everyone owned a copy of spamsieve. Guess who's paying for all of that in
the end?
What about mobile mail? Is there a spamsieve or similar for your phone or
Palm?

Re: Re(2): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Janusz Buda]

Michael Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Let me see -- I replaced both application and scripts, allowed 
>> SpamSieve
>> to update the corpus, then reset it. I then imported some seed spam and
>> retrained with a few dozen good/bad messages to the corpus.
>
>I think that's the problem There are more than a thousand seed spam 
>messages, so if you only added a few dozen good messages they may be 
>being drowned out. Do you have more good messages that you could add?

That did the trick. Many thanks!

I added twenty or thirty good messages manually and all is well again.

- Jud -

Re(6): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Marlyse Comte]

>I have tried every form of Database rebuilding PowerMail offers in an
>attempt to improve stability.  Still when I awoke this morning, and
>stumbled over to the duallie, "The Application PowerMail has expectedly
>quit." :/

try deleting PMs preference file (in the PM Files folder). Window Prefs /
User Prefs (make a copy of them, just in case). This handled for me a
little hiccup where the Recent Mail window would not come to front
anymore. I had deleted the file for another reason, but was happy to see
this issue fixed. Might be that it fixes your problem too.

Regarding the POP lock - set PM to check one after the other instead of
simultaneously, that should handle the problem. Though since OSX I am
running the check simultaneously w/o problems.

---marlyse

Re: Re(2): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Michael Tsai]

On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 10:02  AM, Janusz Buda wrote:

> Let me see -- I replaced both application and scripts, allowed 
> SpamSieve
> to update the corpus, then reset it. I then imported some seed spam and
> retrained with a few dozen good/bad messages to the corpus.

I think that's the problem There are more than a thousand seed spam 
messages, so if you only added a few dozen good messages they may be 
being drowned out. Do you have more good messages that you could add?

-- 
Michael Tsai 

Re: Re(5): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[C. A. Niemiec]

Scott at HobbyLink:
>Not only that, but Michael Tsai is actively developing the program, 
>and very responsive.

not long after...

Michael Tsai:
>There's no POP locking problem with SpamSieve because PowerMail is what 
>downloads the messages.

aob_ml - Check it out! There's your active developer for you!  :D

I personally don't use a 3rd party spam filter. I can set up filters in
PowerMail that pretty much catch all the spam I would otherwise receive
(which, honestly, is not that much). And I've never had a database
problem in PowerMail that wasn't fixable. Many people on this list have
attested to PM's database robustness. 

But if you like another program, and it's free, give it a spin. If you
find it doesn't work for you or something crashes irreparably you can
always start over with PowerMail. ;)

Chris
-- 

Re: Re(2): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Janusz Buda]

Michael Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 11:37  PM, Janusz Buda wrote:
>
>> Ever since updating to PowerMail 4.2 and SpamSieve 2.0 the PM filters
>> have been setting about 90% of incoming mail (both spam and good) to
>> Label Priority No. 7, with no recognizable pattern.
>>
>> I noticed that the SpamSieve 'label if spam' script has No. 7 as the
>> default, but my PM filter is definitely set to 'move if spam'.
>
>"Move If Spam" also labels spam messages with priority 7. I'm not using 
>PM 4.2 yet, as I have not been able to connect to CTM's site. How did 
>you upgrade to SpamSieve 2.0? Did you retrain with both kinds of 
>messages?

Let me see -- I replaced both application and scripts, allowed SpamSieve
to update the corpus, then reset it. I then imported some seed spam and
retrained with a few dozen good/bad messages to the corpus. 

I'm having no problems whatsoever with the spam filtering. What's unusual
is that most of my incoming mail is being set to priority 7, irrespective
of whether it's good or spam. 

Your message, for example, was correctly filtered to my 'Powermail'
folder, but set to priority 7. 

By the way, it's an unexpected pleasure to correspond with the author of
SpamSieve. A great piece of software!

- Jud -

Re(5): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Tim Hodgson]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 8:15 am -0400, aob_ml wrote:

>Thankfully I run my own domain, and have been able to run some filtering
>at that level.

Maybe SpamAssassin would be a better option for you?

>When I mentioned that $25 for SpamSieve was a deal breaker, it's not that
>$25 is a lot of money, it's that I'd feel like a sucker for paying for
>something that's free elsewhere.  From looking over the site, I'm sorry
>but I don't see anything particularly magical about SpamSieve.  If
>anything PopFile seems more robust, but the same problems exist with either.

If you're talking about the locking problem, it's not an issue with
POPfile because the program acts as a proxy server. The email client only
talks to POPfile, not to the 'real' mailserver.

TimH

Re(5): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Michael Lewis]

aob_ml sez:

>No I haven't already decided, I'm playing devils advocate here. And I'm
>waiting for some point to come in and convince me.

The thing is that mail clients are an incredibly personal preference, so
nothing anyone says is likely going to convince you. People try mail
clients until they feel comfortable with one, no matter its "flaws," and
then they pretty much stick with it for a very very long time.

It's pretty obvious that many many people are not having the issue with
PowerMail which seems to be the major one for you (stability). While
others post here about stability issues, the majority either fix them or
never have any (and a majority of PM users probably don't even know this
list exists, so who knows what percentage of them have trouble or not :)
). Yet, you won't take that as a point because of your personal
experience -- and there's nothing wrong with that. Email is a very
important tool these days and you have to use a client which works for
you, no matter other people saying "But I have no issues at all!"
  
>When I mentioned that $25 for SpamSieve was a deal breaker, it's not that
>$25 is a lot of money, it's that I'd feel like a sucker for paying for
>something that's free elsewhere.

Again, this is a personal thing. You see it as being a "sucker." Many
here see the fact spam filtering (of the kind you want -- I can filter
spam with Mail Filters pretty well which are included) isn't built into
PM as an opportunity.

For example, many here tout SpamSieve, and it's wonderful. I, on the
other hand, use SpamCop.Net, which filters my email before I even get it.
The stuff never even makes it to my system thanks to its combination of
subscriber reporting of spam and server-based SpamAssassin rules. I don't
have to be at a client office and wait while porn mail downloads to my
system over their 56k line as I attempt to get that tech response back,
etc. The $30 per year subscription is well worth it to me.

I checked out that ThunderBird page. It holds absolutely no appeal even
though it is free. If free is all someone cares about (or all they can
afford) then so be it. You'll never argue them out of it either because
they are cheap, or they just can't afford another alternative, or because
whatever it is does what they need. If ThunderBird's spam filtering is
good enough for you and the client acts the way you want, then enjoy it!

I stopped recommending mail clients to people a long long time ago. I
simply tell people what I use and why, then I tell them to try several --
free or not -- to find one that fits them and the way they think and
work. If they don't, then a good amount of time they spend on the
Internet -- because email takes up an awful lot of time -- won't be very
enjoyable.

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Re: Re(2): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Michael Tsai]

On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 11:37  PM, Janusz Buda wrote:

> Ever since updating to PowerMail 4.2 and SpamSieve 2.0 the PM filters
> have been setting about 90% of incoming mail (both spam and good) to
> Label Priority No. 7, with no recognizable pattern.
>
> I noticed that the SpamSieve 'label if spam' script has No. 7 as the
> default, but my PM filter is definitely set to 'move if spam'.

"Move If Spam" also labels spam messages with priority 7. I'm not using 
PM 4.2 yet, as I have not been able to connect to CTM's site. How did 
you upgrade to SpamSieve 2.0? Did you retrain with both kinds of 
messages?

-- 
Michael Tsai 

Re: Re(5): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Michael Tsai]

On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 08:15  AM, aob_ml wrote:

> The problem with the external filters is the obvious poplock problem, 
> when the filter tries to connect at the same time.

There's no POP locking problem with SpamSieve because PowerMail is what 
downloads the messages.

-- 
Michael Tsai 

Re(5): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[aob_ml]

I have tried every form of Database rebuilding PowerMail offers in an
attempt to improve stability.  Still when I awoke this morning, and
stumbled over to the duallie, "The Application PowerMail has expectedly
quit." :/

The Bayesian filters, all work as well as one and another, which means,
they're as good as they've been trained to be.  But there's another hitch
here, I'm always connected to the internet, and during the day, I really
need to be checking my mail every minute or so (there's a lot of tag
going on).  And before you suggest a chat client, that's happening too,
but a lot of my clients can't/don't want have/want that, and wrangling
with them is unrewarding.  The problem with the external filters is the
obvious poplock problem, when the filter tries to connect at the same
time. I would also like to get away from pop.

Thankfully I run my own domain, and have been able to run some filtering
at that level.  Of the 150+ mail messages I get a day, ~3-4 are actually spam.

I also used Emailer for a long time, years, amazing program, and I will
grant that PowerMail may very well be it's 'spiritual' successor.

When I mentioned that $25 for SpamSieve was a deal breaker, it's not that
$25 is a lot of money, it's that I'd feel like a sucker for paying for
something that's free elsewhere.  From looking over the site, I'm sorry
but I don't see anything particularly magical about SpamSieve.  If
anything PopFile seems more robust, but the same problems exist with either.

-Austin

Re: Re(3): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Dietmar Harms]

Austin,

>I expect stability

I had this problem for some time that PowerMail crashed rather often.
After using the built in features to compact the database and rebuilding
the index, the problem disappeared. Now PowerMail is running for months
without any crash under Mac OS X 10.2.6.

>AppleScript is nice, but I haven't needed to use it for anything

I really like the script that can change the subject of a mail for
archiving purposes.

-- 
Best, Dietmar

Re(3): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Tim Hodgson]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 2:21 pm +0900, Scott at HobbyLink Japan wrote:

>Whether $25 is a lot of money or not for SpamSieve is something only you
>can decide, but let me offer this:  I'd be quite surprised if anybody
>else's (free or built-in) spam system worked as well as it does.  Not
>only that, but Michael Tsai is actively developing the program, and very
>responsive.  I hope he makes millions with this little gem.

I'm using PopFile (), a Bayesian filter,
which is open source/free, and accuracy on my system is currently 99.22%.
With its Unix background, it's probably not quite as straightforward to
install as the commercial OS X alternatives (if anyone's interested I can
direct you to a simple installation guide), but I'm really pleased with it.

Since I'm still on a dial-up link, I'm also using Mailfilter, which is
more or less an open source equivalent of POPMonitor, to delete the big
spams before they leave the server. (Basic rule: anything over 20k from
someone I don't know gets stomped.)

While I'm sure programs like SpamSieve are excellent, it's good to know
that OS X has opened up access to alternatives.

TimH

Re(4): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Karel Gillissen]

Op donderdag, 11 september 2003 schreef aob_ml:

/snip
>
>No I haven't already decided, I'm playing devils advocate here. And I'm
>waiting for some point to come in and convince me.

It is all a matter of personal taste. 
I switched to Powermail from Claris Emailer some 2.5 years ago after
evaluating all email clients on the market.
Ever since powermail have never disappointed me. 
To me It has been rock solid. I recently experienced a database problem
when there was a power-failure in my hometown, just when Powermail was up
and running. (Yes, I know, I should buy a UPS...) But to my great relief
the built-in repair tools of Powermail fixed my database and indexes
without any losses or other problems.

CTMdev added tons of new features (OSX support, address-book integration,
Apple spell check integration, a tremendous fast search engine and a lot
of smaller enhancements) and for all this they only charged me _once_
when upgrading from vs 3 to vs 4. And they are very responsive to
suggestions and problems reported on this list (Although, being a small
company, it can take some time before they have implemented some new
things, but compared to some 'mega companies' they are performing much
better ;-))
My experience with them gives me confidence for future releases and updates.

On a periodic base I am evaluating the developments of other email
clients on he OSX market, but I still have not found one which suits my
needs better and has the user interface I like.
So not trying to convince you but merely stating why _I_ use Powermail.

Karel

Re(3): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Scott at HobbyLink Japan]

>AppleScript is nice, but I haven't needed to use it for anything (in the
>few cases where I considered it, Powermail couldn't trigger a script.)

iKey, Quickeys, etc. can all trigger AppleScripts from any program with
keys you assign to them.  I use iKey.

Whether $25 is a lot of money or not for SpamSieve is something only you
can decide, but let me offer this:  I'd be quite surprised if anybody
else's (free or built-in) spam system worked as well as it does.  Not
only that, but Michael Tsai is actively developing the program, and very
responsive.  I hope he makes millions with this little gem.

I get about 150 messages a day.  At present, about 55% of those are spam.
 With SpamSieve, I may see two, perhaps three of those in my inbox per
day.  The others are all immediately moved to a Spam folder.  I used to
review it regularly to make sure the program was working right, but I
seldom do anymore.  I almost never, ever get a false positive.

I see all the whining and hand-wringing in the media about how spam is
"destroying the Internet" and costing billions in lost time, etc.  And
everytime I think, "if these people just bought SpamSieve, we wouldn't
have stories in the media like this."  It honestly has made spam a total
non-issue for me.

---

Scott T. Hards
President
HobbyLink Japan (www.hlj.com)

Re(4): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[aob_ml]

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 23:37:54 -0400

>On Thu, Sep 11, 2003,  it is attributed to aob_ml to have said:
>
>>but I expect stability in
>>return, which I have never really gotten.
>
>This I don't get.  What OS you working on?  Here on MOSX, PM has never
>once crashed in the half-year I have been using it...

Running 10.2.6 on both machines.

>Do have one Q about T-Bird:  how does it store email?  Proprietary DB, or
>text?

I don't really see this as a issue, PowerMail uses a Proprietary DB.  But
Thunderbird appears to use the same structure as Mozilla/Navigator, so I
would say non-proprietary DB of multiple 'text' (scare quotes
intentional) files.

-Austin

Re(2): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Janusz Buda]

Judi Sohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:20:52 -0600 Bill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>
>>I have to agree, if you get too much spam, get SpamSieve period. 
>
>And here's another vote. Shortly after I downloaded SpamSieve 2.0
>(upgrade) I wiped out my corpus as recommended and used my already
>existing Spam folder with 700 messages to retrain SS. I had a bit of a
>few false positive/negatives (dropping SS's accuracy from 98% down to
>about 87%) but then I adjusted the slider in the prefs and I think I
>found the sweet spot. In the past 24 hours its accuracy has been near-
perfect.

Ever since updating to PowerMail 4.2 and SpamSieve 2.0 the PM filters
have been setting about 90% of incoming mail (both spam and good) to
Label Priority No. 7, with no recognizable pattern. 

I noticed that the SpamSieve 'label if spam' script has No. 7 as the
default, but my PM filter is definitely set to 'move if spam'.

Would this be problem with PM or SpamSieve?

- Jud -

Re(3): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[John Snippe]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003,  it is attributed to aob_ml to have said:

>but I expect stability in
>return, which I have never really gotten.

This I don't get.  What OS you working on?  Here on MOSX, PM has never
once crashed in the half-year I have been using it...

Do have one Q about T-Bird:  how does it store email?  Proprietary DB, or
text?

-- 
later, 
  JS
___
::  john snippe  ::  design:integrate:host  ::  

Re(3): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[aob_ml]

SpamSieve ($25) vs. Free.  There's the breaker there.  Seems like I might
be throwing good money after bad.  That and it is a kludge in this day
and age where nearly every other mail app has some spam filtering.

Performance isn't an issue on my hardware..  Speaking of which I can run
Thunderbird on my 3 primary machines.. (Dual 1.25Ghz/1Ghz TiBook/Athlon
XP 2600+)..

I do tend to go for the minimalist approach, but I expect stability in
return, which I have never really gotten..  And again Thunderbird, does
it all, for free, is stable, and fast..

AppleScript is nice, but I haven't needed to use it for anything (in the
few cases where I considered it, Powermail couldn't trigger a script.)

No I haven't already decided, I'm playing devils advocate here. And I'm
waiting for some point to come in and convince me.

-Austin

Re(2): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Judi Sohn]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:20:52 -0600 Bill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:

>I have to agree, if you get too much spam, get SpamSieve period. 

And here's another vote. Shortly after I downloaded SpamSieve 2.0
(upgrade) I wiped out my corpus as recommended and used my already
existing Spam folder with 700 messages to retrain SS. I had a bit of a
few false positive/negatives (dropping SS's accuracy from 98% down to
about 87%) but then I adjusted the slider in the prefs and I think I
found the sweet spot. In the past 24 hours its accuracy has been near-perfect.

I love the new feature where you only get notification if there's real
mail. It's frustrating when you're in another application and you hear
that mail has come in, only to find it's junk.

-- 
Judi Sohn . Mom at Home Design
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . AIM/iChat: JudiS217
http://www.momathome.com

Re(3): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Marlyse Comte]

> Thunderbird Cons:
> Unknown Future/Not Fully developed 
> Open Source No AppleScript  (and
> unlikely in at least the near future)

I took a quick peak at thunderbird and as cool it might seem, there are
definite points why I personally would not switch: don't think the
interface elegant nor really nice (none of the templates I liked); it's
not even especially fast on my Pismo; spellchecking I have also in PM; it
has the same concept as Mail in regards to mailboxes and local folders
which I do not like at all; I do not need all the whistles of html and
flagging etc., one more reason why I like PM is it's simple and
minimalistic approach.

But this is me.

No reason to talk you out of using it, if you feel happy with it!

---marlyse

Re(2): Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Bill Schjelderup]

I have to agree, if you get too much spam, get SpamSieve period. 

+---+
| Bill Schjelderup -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+---+
>>Thunderbird Cons:
>>Unknown Future/Not Fully developed
>>Open Source
>>No AppleScript  (and unlikely in at least the near future)
>
>That last one is a fatal flaw for me.
>
>With AppleScript, you can add features and shortcuts to a program and
>customize it as you want.  You mention as a con of PM that it has no Spam
>Filter, but it doesn't need one.  Because it has scripting support,
>SpamSieve integrates seamlessly with it.  If you're not using SpamSieve,
>you're really missing out.  It's absolutely brilliant.
>
>---
>
>Scott T. Hards
>President
>HobbyLink Japan (www.hlj.com)
>

Re: Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Scott at HobbyLink Japan]

>Thunderbird Cons:
>Unknown Future/Not Fully developed
>Open Source
>No AppleScript  (and unlikely in at least the near future)

That last one is a fatal flaw for me.

With AppleScript, you can add features and shortcuts to a program and
customize it as you want.  You mention as a con of PM that it has no Spam
Filter, but it doesn't need one.  Because it has scripting support,
SpamSieve integrates seamlessly with it.  If you're not using SpamSieve,
you're really missing out.  It's absolutely brilliant.

---

Scott T. Hards
President
HobbyLink Japan (www.hlj.com)

Re: Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[Gerald F. Carroll]

This is strange indeed.

I cannot remember the last time Powermail failed on me. I won't say it
hasn't, but never where it doesn't start up right again.

I like powermail because i hate HTML with all it's dancing garbage.

I do not find an irregularity in the updates, Skins don't are not
terribly important to me. They would be nice but i consider them a
"frilly dilly". I have three accounts on my powermail. Two are pop
accountes and the last is my .mac account. I use powermail as a backup
for this account and have it set not to delete the mail so i can keep my
mail a little more separated.

Although Powermail will not handle all the HTML mail i get, the ones with
the genuine HTML format display ok in HTML when i want them to. There is
some HTML mail i get that doesn't seem to have the structure starting
with "HEAD" etc  that apparently is the format for HTML that you normally
see. Powermail wont display these but it's no great loss.

Also i probably don't use the many features that can be had in mail
applications and my data base may not be humungous, Powermail still is my
main Emailer. As for a built in spam filter i use Spamfire. It has its
drawbacks, but the extra work of running it first doesn't really bother
me at all.

I see a lot of messages on this discussion group with problems during
upgrades, I have yet to have an upgrade go bad on me or crunch up my
mail. Maybe i'm lucky, but i cannot knock results and i have to go with
what works best for me.

With all the means and extremes i see reading this support list i still
prefer Powermail.

Gerry

>Okay, so I've been a *paid* user of Powermail 4 for I don't know, better
>then 6 months.  And I've been fairly happy.  However Thunderbird has been
>coming on strong, and I've installed it on a ton of friends computers,
>and they've been totally thrilled.  So here it is, I hate to give up on
>something I've paid good money into, but I see holding on to something
>just because I paid for it as a greater evil (two wrongs and all that).
>
>So here's where I'm at:
>
>Powermail Pros:
>I paid for it.
>It's better then Mail
>It's more Stable then Mail.
>I have all my email/accounts/etc in it.
>I have all my rules setup in it.
>Search engine (Foxtrot) works right.
>Pretty stable on my 1Ghz TiBook
>
>Powermail Cons:
>I paid for it
>No built in spam filter
>IMAP implementation is lacking.
>Crashes on my MDD Dual 1.25Ghz at least once a day.
>Interface isn't as slick as Thunderbird
>
>Tunderbird Pros:
>Free
>Nice, Customizable Interface
>Open Source
>Spam Filter
>Regular Updates
>Stable (hasn't crashed yet)
>Palm Support coming
>News
>
>Thunderbird Cons:
>Unknown Future/Not Fully developed
>Open Source
>No AppleScript  (and unlikely in at least the near future)
>Import is lacking
>A little more bloat
>
>So talk me out of moving to Thunderbird.
>
>-Austin
>P.S. don't remind me of what version I'm running right now, I'm aware,
>it's been the most stable for whatever reason on this machine.
>
>
>

-- 
The faster the computer
The more impatient the user.

Powermail vs. Thunderbird

[aob_ml]

Okay, so I've been a *paid* user of Powermail 4 for I don't know, better
then 6 months.  And I've been fairly happy.  However Thunderbird has been
coming on strong, and I've installed it on a ton of friends computers,
and they've been totally thrilled.  So here it is, I hate to give up on
something I've paid good money into, but I see holding on to something
just because I paid for it as a greater evil (two wrongs and all that).

So here's where I'm at:

Powermail Pros:
I paid for it.
It's better then Mail
It's more Stable then Mail.
I have all my email/accounts/etc in it.
I have all my rules setup in it.
Search engine (Foxtrot) works right.
Pretty stable on my 1Ghz TiBook

Powermail Cons:
I paid for it
No built in spam filter
IMAP implementation is lacking.
Crashes on my MDD Dual 1.25Ghz at least once a day.
Interface isn't as slick as Thunderbird

Tunderbird Pros:
Free
Nice, Customizable Interface
Open Source
Spam Filter
Regular Updates
Stable (hasn't crashed yet)
Palm Support coming
News

Thunderbird Cons:
Unknown Future/Not Fully developed
Open Source
No AppleScript  (and unlikely in at least the near future)
Import is lacking
A little more bloat

So talk me out of moving to Thunderbird.

-Austin
P.S. don't remind me of what version I'm running right now, I'm aware,
it's been the most stable for whatever reason on this machine.