"David K. Wall" <usenet@dwall.fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:Xns93E01BC74ADF8dkwwashere@216.168.3.30:

Actually popfile IS included in 2003. Under "email manager" not email
spam tool.

Spambayes is newer probably wasnt around last year.

Really? I had to download and install python for spambayes to try.

I have used popfile and SAproxy for a long while. I'm currently trying
out Spambayes. First impressions is that it's faster to setup since you
can feed ham/spam directly through the webinterface You can do that in
Popfile too, but it's harder.




Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

Aaron <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns93E1AE88F5EB8unknown23
@203.116.1.193:

There's an Outlook plugin that doesn't need a separate python installation.
It's great and I use it all the time. I much prefer it to K9 or Popfile.

http://starship.python.net/crew/mhammond/spambayes/

--
Iain Cheyne
Remove the numbers and change "invalid" to "net" to reply.
Please check www.pricelessware.org, the FAQ and Google Groups before
posting in alt.comp.freeware.

Iain Cheyne <iain@c1h2e3y4n5e.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns93E3DB9765B0Fiaincheynenet@195.149.20.147:

Oh.. Outlook plugin, that explains it.

It's great and I use it all the time. I much prefer it
Any particular reason? besides it being integreted? The POPfile equalavant
is Outclass btw.

My own experiences with the real spam bayes were not as fortunate, as i was
hit by a corrupt database bug.I'm told they are still tracking/figuring
out.

Well that's to be expected cos spambayes is still in "alpha" ?







Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

On 26 Aug 2003 20:35:15 GMT, Iain Cheyne <iain@c1h2e3y4n5e.invalid>
wrote:

I have been using that for some days now and it shows 100% results
(all spam blocked, good mail saved) after just one single learning
session! It is incredible!

I was trying Ihatespam, but it leked despite is's fine rulesets etc.
Spambayes does not leak.

jari

[Spambayes outlook plugin]

Apart from the excellent integration, I like the Possible Spam folder.
It kills false positives completely.

Popfile was clunky to use and interfered with the Proxomitron. I might
try Outclass as I liked the way Popfile is able to have several
different buckets, which are not necessarily spam-based.

K9 simply was not accurate enough. I tried rebuilding the database,
but it was still useless.

--
Iain Cheyne

iainatcheynedotnet.1.iain@spamgourmet.com (Iain Cheyne) wrote in
news:770b54f5.0308290018.4fc5812f@posting.google.c om:

Yes, that's what sets spambayes apart from other bayesian filters.
However, does this mean you trust it enough just to delete the mails
tagged by spambayes as spam without looking? If not, it's kind of
pointless, since you will be looking at 2 folders instead of one.

My first attempt at using the "real" spambayes (sans outlook plugin) was
not succuessful because i ran into a bug that corrupted the database, i
was told they are still tracking the bug.

Oh well, it's listed as still being in prerelease, that's why... I'll
give it another try when they release another version


Not that i noticed. Simple enough to change the port that popfile works
on.



Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

I do trust it. There is an ini file you can edit to hide unread message
notifications. Unfortunately, Microsoft will not allow developers to
remove the new mail envelope from the systray.

I did that, but it was worth pointing out.

--
Iain Cheyne
Please check www.pricelessware.org, the FAQ and Google Groups before
posting in alt.comp.freeware.

On 29 Aug 2003 01:18:17 -0700,
iainatcheynedotnet.1.iain@spamgourmet.com (Iain Cheyne) wrote:

< snip >

No problems here. They just need to use different ports.

I found K9 hugely inaccurate (compared to PopFile) for quite a while.
A recent release however changed the way it worked to the way PopFile
works. I now get 99%+ accuracy with K9.

Regards, John.

--
************************************************** **
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

On 29 Aug 2003 19:10:35 GMT, Iain Cheyne <iain@c1h2e3y4n5e.invalid>
wrote:


somewhere in the spambayes docs you will find an ini file setting:


delete_as_spam_message_state:Read


that removes the new mail envelope for you.


FWIW, i have been using spambayes since the end of May. i now have
1800 spam messages and spambayes is working well. it has never put a
good message into spam, but it has put a number into Possible. these
days i trust it.


jack
We are certainly moving with alacrity to the future

jack horsfield <z1.20.jackh@neverbox.com> wrote in
news:kvb1lvgfduncs7ssik1m8buidcv8vbj6n9@4ax.com:


The help file is at: docs/configuration.html

This is what it says about delete_as_spam_message_state:

Determines how to set the "Read" state of a message as they are manually
managed by the "Delete as Spam" button. [snip] ***Note that even if you
set new messages to Read, the new mail icon in the taskbar does still
indicates there is new mail.***

Yes. It's excellent.

--
Iain Cheyne
Please check www.pricelessware.org, the FAQ and Google Groups before
posting in alt.comp.freeware.

On 30 Aug 2003 15:24:44 GMT, Iain Cheyne <myfirstname@mysurname.net>
wrote:



hmm. yes, but that could be applying to messages that it doesn't move.
i have the setting and i don't see spam messages arrive, whereas i do
see normal messages. (i'm using Outlook 2000)

jack
Not used. Pre-enjoyed.

I just managed to find an explanation from the Spambayes FAQ
(http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/faq.htm).

"3.9 How can I get rid of the envelope tray icon for spam?
This is a very difficult thing to do, because Outlook does not expose
the hooks that are necessary to cleanly do this (feel free to write to
Microsoft and tell them that they should correct this). This means that
even if you have set SpamBayes to mark spam as read, the envelope tray
icon will not vanish. Although there is code available that provides a
method to delete this icon, it doesn't let us determine whether there is
other unread mail as well, which means that we do not know whether we
should delete the icon or not. Until someone comes up with a clever
solution for all of this, you'll have to put up with the little
envelope, sorry."

--
Iain Cheyne
Please check www.pricelessware.org, the FAQ and Google Groups before
posting in alt.comp.freeware.

Some pricelessware performs several tasks quite well. A very few
entries contain crossreferences, but many more are possible. I know
that I find such crossreferences very useful. Sometimes I have
multiple needs that are best met by a single program -- or at least it
saves learning multiple ones. Several times I have eventually found
the "other" program that provides the feature but usually not until I
have already committed to one from the main category.

I hope that during discussion this year, people familiar with these
programs will point out the needed crossreferences when merited.

An excerpt from a recent thread on filtering spam exemplifies the
problem -- and a potential crossreference to add.

Aaron <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93E1AE88F5EB8unknown23@203.116.1.193>...
This may not be the best example as a review of the alphabetical list
would have turned up the match, but it probably does indicate a
typical use of the list.

Should "eMail Spam Tool" include a crossreference to POPFile?

Should the POPFile description include a more explicit reference to
spam in the text? A "referenced from" ("see from"?) line?

Are there other suggested crossreferences?

Should we make suggesting and reviewing recommended crossreferences
part of the nomination and discussion process?

Please help improve Pricelessware.

Thanks,
BillR

BillR5temp@hotmail.com (BillR) wrote in
news:b12d1235.0308301515.74bf5407@posting.google.c om:

IMHO, not only POPfile, but most of the entries in "email manager" tool
category can be merged into eMal Spam tool.





Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

Thanks, Susan.

The "trial page for cross-referencing the PL" you created should help
stimulate the necessary participation to gather cross-reference
information.
http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004TopicList.php#1

I have some suggestions for gathering and presenting the
cross-references.

Nomination Suggestion: The nomination/discussion process should
include suggested cross-references (or explicit "none").

Presentation Suggestion: This information whould be explicitly
referenced on each PL detail page where information is available
rather than as (or in addition to) separate pages.

Collection Suggestion: I think you will elicit more information with
two different page organizations than you will with the first cut
PL2004TopicList.php#1

The first organiztion would list the entries in category/subcategory
of PL (i.e., 15-40 programs on x-axis) against all
categories/subcategories (topics/subtopics).

The second organization would list a category and its subcategories
(sub/topics on x-axis) against all the programs organized by
category/subcategory.

The logical third organization would list a category and its
subcategories (x-axis) vesus all programs organized alphabetically

I think the second organization (single cat. w/ subs vs. all progs
within cat/subcat) would be useful since often several programs in a
category or subcategory provide the same capabilities that need to be
cross-referenced. This is especially true within a category (e.g.,
Aaron suggested email manager, popfile, and spam greatly overlap).

I think the third organization (single cat. w/ subs vs. all progs
alphabetically) is the least useful since a simple search can easily
locate a program if you already know the name.

Ideally the underlying matrix itself should be all programs against
all subcategories (which will make it rather large) with empty rows
and columns optionally removed. The sparse matrix would not be very
useful except as a source of data to be manipulated.

BillR

First Thread: Re: Ping Susan - PW query
------------
Susan Bugher <whoisebugher@kvi.net> wrote in message news:<3F777E2D.A06CFFF1@kvi.net>...
cross-references
Second Thread: Re: [PL] More SEE References Needed Between Categories?
-------------
Aaron <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93E8D944F437Aunknown23@203.116.1.193>...

BillR wrote:

Requesting that information is a good idea.


IMO that is not a workable suggestion. Please note: I am not saying it
is impossible - I am saying it is not possible *in the time available*.


The subcategories would be useful for multi-purpose programs - but not
helpful for programs like Resource Hacker. There is no subcategory for
screensavers at the present time - but we do have several programs that
can make screensavers.

I do think listing the main categories is a good way to get started.
I'll work on this. I think further subdivision should be done by topics
- the topics will not necessarily be subcategories.

Thanks for the input.

Susan

Susan Bugher <whoisebugher@kvi.net> wrote in message news:<3F789C38.B744545B@kvi.net>...
I also saw an example this morning where the PL subcategory does not
exist but where I would have found the information useful. So an
alternative for presenting the information in PL: for each program
(_where_available_) include a list of features (capabilities?) based
on a much more complete standard list of software. Of necessity, this
would be an evolving list since it is a new idea. 2005 anyone? Until
then this could be made available as a trial PL 2004 and we can start
collecting the information as part of the nomination and review
process.

For collection purposes, perhaps these pages could allow a viewer to
add topics and features initially. For myself, I'm more likely to
contribute to a page when I can do so immediately than if I have to
format an email. Further, gathering a number of comments for ng
review might elicit a better response. I wouldn't want to see email
every time someone wanted to add a topic or list a couple of featues
for a program.

Again, thanks for your responsiveness, Susan.

BillR