Where does anything say that you have to use all of the third rule's critera?

"I'll repeat that, because it bears repeating." - Lewis Black

Where does anything say that you have to use all of the third rule's critera?

If you get tons of mail from yahoo.com, that you WANT, where the senders aren't in your address book, don't use that criterion. If you get massive amounts of spam, and don't get e-mail from yahoo.com that isn't from people in your address book, use that criterion.

It's an HTML file, not an Entourage configuration application/script that you can't change. The basic concepts are all the same: Get around the "from me to me" spam trick, make exceptions, and lay down some burnination on everything else.

I'm strict on spam. My setup doesn't touch mail I want, and my filters show it. Some are lighter, and won't use all of those. It's a "starting point", like I said.

Excuse me for assuming people who understand rules are smart enough to understand that if they don't want yahoo.com blocked, they can ignore and not use the yahoo.com filter. I should assume they're all inept and will wonder where their mail went, like you, next time.

Also, if you work in finances, etc., and you see the rules that tag "financ", and /don't/ understand that, like everything else listed there, anything with "financ" in the subject line (just like the rule plainly, clearly defines) will get deleted, you shouldn't be touching spam rules to begin with.

Also, I appreciate you calling me a liar. I really do. I use this system, and it /does/ work for me. /Also,/ I didn't state with that it works for me 100%:

"It's a good starting point for getting the spam out of your field of vision. It takes about fifteen minutes or so to set this up, but it's worth it. I see maybe 5% of all spam sent to me, with an error margin of about 0.001%.

"If you have any ideas to improve upon this, shoot 'em my way."

1. Note the two error percentages there, including the error margin phrase. I'm serious when I say that I really only see about one friendly-fire error in every thousand messages that get scanned. I've been evolving my rules (note how I use "me" there, implying a level of subjection, and how it's just a bunch of text--you can implement it however you like) for a long time, and I wouldn't say it's too far-fetched, after more than a couple of years, to become that accurate against your e-mail habits.

2. Rather than giving me helpful suggestions, as I asked, you go to town on all but the first part in a comment you have no way of knowing if I'll see (though I did, obviously). Thanks for the single sentence on the (I'd say) most interesting part of the document, the header/authentication trick. (I was quite proud of this, even though it's probably been done before.)

I don't like spam. If you don't like it, either, these concepts are easily taken into your e-mail client of choice however you like, to best fit your needs.

It's easier to criticize someone else's work than to provide better alternatives. (No, a vague reference to using Entourage's junk mail filter and AppleScript doesn't exactly count.)

Thanks for the comment.

... And the best way to figure out when someone's using copy and paste?

"... all of the third rule's critera?"

When the same typo appears twice in a row. ;D

-/-