5642Re: [wpmac] SpamSieve vs. legitimate WordPerfect posts?
- Feb 7, 2009I second, third all the favorable comments.
On Feb 7, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Rick Albright wrote:
> I agree that SpamSieve is a terrific product, and very well
> supported. I've been using it for about 2 years now; I've probably
> gotten about a dozen updates to it without paying any additional
> fees. It does a far better job than any other spam filter I've tried,
> and is very reasonably priced, especially given the outstanding
> Rick Albright
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Katherine Noftz Nagel (Kat) wrote:
>> BI've been using SpamSieve for several years. It's the best of the
>> bunch, in my experience, in terms of the low incidence of false
>> positives (mail marked as spam that shouldn't be). If you're
>> concerned, just go back into training mode for a while: mark the
>> real spam messages, then screen your spam folder for any real list
>> messages that might have gotten caught. I sort by subject, then
>> scroll down to [wpmac] to check for mistakes. After a few
>> corrections, SpamSieve has been dead accurate in separating real
>> messages from junk.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic