-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Joseph,
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:18:06 +0000 (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
