Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wpmac] SpamSieve vs. legitimate WordPerfect posts?

Expand Messages
  • Rick Albright
    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
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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 support.

      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.
      >
    • Bill Bossart
      I second, third all the favorable comments. Bill Bossart whbossart@ucdavis.edu ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I second, third all the favorable comments.
        Bill Bossart
        whbossart@...






        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
        > support.
        >
        > 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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.