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
Power
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
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 PowerM
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
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 be
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 pink
Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?
Thanks.
- Winston
>...
>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
--
>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
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)
downloa
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 honestl
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
>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 /
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
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
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 recognizab
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,
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 the
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 '
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 T
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'
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.
>AppleScrip
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
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
e
>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
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.
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 us
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 doe
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 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
> 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 rea
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 unl
>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 i
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
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
somethin
35 matches
Mail list logo
