On Friday, March 23, 2012 2:57:29 AM UTC+9, stan wrote:
> use...@gfarlie.demon.co.uk wrote:
> How much do
> you want google reading and messing with your mail? Clearly to filter
> mail something has to examine contents and deciding how and which mail
> to examine and what to do with the results is a tough problem.
Yes, but I use Norton to filter by e-mail and it does a splendid job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Google could at least, for instance, divert suspect posts to a reserved group such as comp.lang.fortran.spam.
michaelmetc...@compuserve.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 2:57:29 AM UTC+9, stan wrote:
>> How much do you want google reading and messing with your mail?
>> Clearly to filter mail something has to examine contents and
>> deciding how and which mail to examine and what to do with the
>> results is a tough problem.
> Yes, but I use Norton for my e-mail and it does a splendid job of
> sorting the wheat from the chaff. Google could do something similar
> and, for instance, write suspect posts to a reserved group such as
> comp.lang.fortran.spam.
I think Google could do more, but I think Google reading public mail
is opening Pandora's box. I'm not a lawyer but I can imagine the
liability issues alone would be non trivial.
Using a Outlook Express as a reader, plus a single filter, I reduced 470
SPAM of today (displayed on first pass check of headers) to 20 genuine
messages (shown as final count). Works for me.
Filter line specifies one german and one french word as well as the usual
lingua franca English
