<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SpamCop, Yahoo &amp; Gmail Spam Filtering Stats: Jan 16, 2006</title>
	<atom:link href="http://daggle.com/spamcop-yahoo-gmail-spam-filtering-stats-jan-16-2006-53/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://daggle.com/spamcop-yahoo-gmail-spam-filtering-stats-jan-16-2006-53</link>
	<description>Danny Sullivan&#039;s Personal Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 03:21:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scramblejams</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/spamcop-yahoo-gmail-spam-filtering-stats-jan-16-2006-53/comment-page-1#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Scramblejams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:37:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=53#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Hi Danny, very informative, except for a couple of things. This chart is confusing since you&#039;ve got two rows labelled &quot;Spam&quot; with slightly different numbers, but I suppose that was just a thinko, as it were. What would have been very enlightening, though, would be to know how many false negatives each had. That SpamCop is the best of the three is apparent, but without knowing how what percentage of your post-filtering inbox consisted of undetected spam, I don&#039;t know how good it really is.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="">
<p>Hi Danny, very informative, except for a couple of things. This chart is confusing since you&#8217;ve got two rows labelled &#8220;Spam&#8221; with slightly different numbers, but I suppose that was just a thinko, as it were. What would have been very enlightening, though, would be to know how many false negatives each had. That SpamCop is the best of the three is apparent, but without knowing how what percentage of your post-filtering inbox consisted of undetected spam, I don&#8217;t know how good it really is.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kalenj</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/spamcop-yahoo-gmail-spam-filtering-stats-jan-16-2006-53/comment-page-1#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>kalenj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=53#comment-15</guid>
		<description>Danny,
Thanks for doing this side by side comparison.  Very useful!  I totally LOVE gmail, but couple things I don&#039;t like about spam handling:
* Sometimes it silently marks something as spam, doesn&#039;t put in spam folder, doesn&#039;t send bounce message or anything.  And on false positives.
* I&#039;d REALLY love to be able to disable sometimes - especially since filters work so well.
Thought I&#039;d gripe to you, since you&#039;re apparently a spam pro.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="">
<p>Danny,<br />
Thanks for doing this side by side comparison.  Very useful!  I totally LOVE gmail, but couple things I don&#8217;t like about spam handling:<br />
* Sometimes it silently marks something as spam, doesn&#8217;t put in spam folder, doesn&#8217;t send bounce message or anything.  And on false positives.<br />
* I&#8217;d REALLY love to be able to disable sometimes &#8211; especially since filters work so well.<br />
Thought I&#8217;d gripe to you, since you&#8217;re apparently a spam pro.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

