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

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

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bossart
    I second, third all the favorable comments. Bill Bossart whbossart@ucdavis.edu ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 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.