[Spambayes] Problems on Windows machines

[Richard B Barger ABC APR]

Thanks, Jesse.

On some software, I've learned that users who tweak Microsoft's automatic,
or preferred, settings get different results from those who just leave
everything "as is."  So some of the differences in user experience reflected
in pleas to this group could be from different behind-the-scenes set-ups or
tweaks or adjustments.

With one mix of settings, everything works fine all the time; with another
mix, a Microsoft security update is enough to cause some stuff -- SpamBayes?
-- to stop working.  I've had that happen with other software, so it seems
plausible that it could affect SpamBayes, too.

Anyway, "not proven" is exactly where we stand.

Thanks again.

Rich Barger

---

Jesse Pelton wrote:

> I wonder the same thing periodically.  None of the automatic updates has
> ever caused my SpamBayes installation to fail, though, so the only
> evidence I have tends to lead to a verdict of not guilty.  Actually, the
> Scottish Verdict ("not proven" - see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven) may be most appropriate at this
> point.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spambayes-bounces at python.org [mailto:spambayes-bounces at python.org]
> On Behalf Of Richard B Barger ABC APR
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:52 PM
> To: SpamBayes at python.org
> Subject: [Spambayes] Problems on Windows machines
>
> After reading descriptions of on-again, off-again SpamBayes problems from
> users of Windows and other Microsoft products for the past several months,
> I wondered about -- and don't recall seeing any posted comments or
> suggestions related to -- the culpability of some of Microsoft's many
> automatic updates.
>
> Maybe the group has discussed this, and I've just missed it, but the
> otherwise dissimilar nature of many of the "lost mail/impaired
> functionality" seems to have one commonality:  Microsoft operating systems
> or email systems.
>
> Could we simply be seeing the results of one automatic update or another
> resetting an individual user's security and other preferences?  Or is this
> idea so simpleminded that the more sophisticated readers are now breaking
> out into hysterical laughter?
>
> Rich Barger
> Kansas City