User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; H010818) Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401 Seems to me that the objective of Junk Mail filtering should be to eventually handle most junk mail without the need to "double check" to be sure there are no false positives. Can we give the user the option to select different levels of junk mail filtering? I.E. (1) just a manual black list and a manual white list (2) number 1 plus automatic filtering with disclosure of the rules being used, (3) etc. etc. XWALL (by Dataenter) has this type of sytem. (find it here: http://www.dataenter.com/products/xwall.htm People have different tollerance levels for junk mail filtering. In my case, I don't want a junk mail system that does things without revealing the rules it is using and giving me options to opt in or opt out of these rules. I've tried systems like that. They force me to double check to be sure there are no false positives. Any system that forces me to wade through junk mail (even after the system is trained) to be sure there are no false positives is useless to me. (What's the good of marking it or moving it to another folder if I still have to wade through it to double check?) I need a system that gives me the option to just create my own white list and black list manually. That way I'm dead sure that anything marked as junk is truely junk and I don't have to wade through it or worry that an order or message from a client got trashed. Some options for junk mail filtering "levels" would be great. What does anybody think? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.

Mailnews already has filters, which allow you to create your own whitelists and blacklists manually. You do not need to use the Bayesian junk filter if you don't want to. Suggest marking as INVALID, since this functionality is already available.

Not to belabor the point, but to be truely useful an anti-spam system must be easier on the user than simply deleting the spam as messages they come in. Otherwise forget the anti-spam system and just delete the messages. It seems to me that creating individual filters to build a black list is not easier than deleting the messages as they come in. Neither is having to check a separate list of detected spam for false positives. My suggestion is to allow easy building of a custom black list (without using baysian filters that have the potential to produce false postives.) Maybe I'm a loner, but I think checking messages in a trash folder for false positives is more work than just deleting the junk messages to begin with.

this seems like an un-neccessarily complicated version of bug 208267. i don't think it is a dupe, though, as it is asking for more. people may want to search for whitelisting (and "white listing") also.

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01". This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code. While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug (given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more reproduction information if you have it. If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved. Thank you for your help in this matter. The latest beta releases can be obtained from: Firefox: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/ Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html Seamonkey: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.