Hi Michael, On Tuesday, September 28, 2004 22:06 your local time, which was Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 06:06 my local time, Michael Wilson [MLW] wrote;
MLW> I have to get off BayesIT! It learns way to slow. What do people MLW> think of SpamPal or K9? I have tried both and like both...so, what do MLW> others think? I used SpamPal for just over a month and it worked very well. I ended up moving to Bayes Filter for a couple of reasons; 1. When connecting with TLS and SpamPal, I also needed Stunnel 2. I wanted an all in one solution, and running TB!, SpamPal and Stunnel wasn't really convienient. 3. I was having IMAP timeout issues Other than that, it was a very effective program and pretty fast. Although having said that, I'm more than happy with Bayes Filter since I've made the move and especially since using the DNS list's similar to SpamPal. Stats so far; HamMails: 5530 SpamMails: 1732 Detected Ham: 5014 (99.9%) Detected Spam: 871 (99.3%) FALSE Ham detected: 6 FALSE Spam detected: 2 I hope that helps. -- Regards, Chris Created using The Bat! v3.0.0.19 & IMAP OS of Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Cleaning up SPAM with Bayes Filter Plugin v1.5.4 ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
