-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Joseph,
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:18:06 + (UTC) (10:18 AM here), Joseph N.
[JN] wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
JN I've been happy using SpamPal and some plug-ins, including the
JN Bayesian filter, with TB! Is there any reason I should consider
JN switching to Bayesit?
I also use SpamPal with the Bayesian and URLBody plugins. Out of
curiosity, I switched to the BayesIT plugin for awhile (2 months). It
took about a week or so before it was trained sufficiently to detect
spam. After another couple of weeks it was successfully intercepting
most of the spam with no false positives. Every so often polling for
mail would hang but temporarily disabling BayesIT would resolve the
problem, so I think there was a definite correlation. It was
convenient not having to run another relay like SpamPal, as everything
was almost self contained with The Bat!/BayesIT combo. In spite of
this advantage, I still went back to SpamPal. I think SpamPal's
additional advantage of using DNSBL public blacklists makes the
difference between catching most of the spam vs all of the spam. I've
never had any false positives with SpamPal either. For me, SpamPal
seems to be a more thorough solution.
- --
Kevin Coates
Dewitt, NY USA
Using TB! v2.05 Beta/1 under Windows XP 5.1.2600 SP1
(see kludges for my pgp key)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iD8DBQFAUdu5vZSrVDqOXK0RAgSGAKDTyQ9jJsv5y6obxPacyTW+oG5OLgCggxlE
Q3zBaQkAm9bnxzG7r2oc+TU=
=8Ty9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
