Michael Snow wrote:
If I were trying to use the same junk filtering system with multiple email clients (one or more of Mail, Thunderbird, Eudora, etc.) then I think SpamSieve, or something similar, might be worth the money and time. If your only email client is Thunderbird, then I think SpamSieve is a redundant waste of money. I would not pay for SpamSieve unless the Bayesian filter system in Thunderbird proves inadequate.
Spamsieve is much more robust than the built in spam filters in any email client. What the built in filter misses, SS will catch. That's one of the reasons it's recommended so highly by all the mac rags.
SpamSieve is very configurable and includes features that Thunderbird and Mail do not. The real issue, in this case, is whether or not the "robustness" is worth the cost. It's hard to beat FREE. C-Command, the developers of SpamSieve, advertise the following endorsements of their product
April 2007 - Ian Betteridge reviews SpamSieve 2.6 in the April 13 MacUser UK (p. 42):
[Apple] Mail on its own spotted 90 spams, with one false positive among the good mails. Thunderbird alone spotted 86 spam emails, with no false positives. Thunderbird with SpamSieve, though, managed to spot every single spam email, with no false positives at all.
This is the only information I could find on C-Command's site that directly compares the performance of SpamSieve and Thunderbird.
There is no question that SpamSieve is an excellent product. My argument is that Thunderbird's filtering system, which uses a similar Bayesian system to SpamSieve's, may be good enough for a person who only uses Thunderbird.