guenther schrieb:
> Unfortunately, the example of (current) version 1.0 is rather
> scarce when it comes to the definitions. I'd wish for these to become as
> informative again as they used to be. FWIW, these verbose descriptions
> and comments have been the reason for me to pick 2 out of 3 lists in the
> first place, long ago. (Which doesn't mean I am not re-evaluating this
> decision. In fact, the third one seems to be highly accurate, too --
> granted, based on some brief, non-exhaustive tests...)
> Revision 23 of your plugins old home claims this:
> * Uses iX Magazine's spam as datasource.
> * *Manually* verified stuff, fed by
> spamtraps run by LogIn & Solutions AG.
> * Lots of stuff, but *automatically*
> categorized and contributed.
> So, the most important question is: Does this still hold true?

those comments have been changed to today's because:
- They're not true any more for; they are fed
from 'high quality' input
- They're to long: Older SA version have a limit of 50 chars I wasn't
aware of at first

I promised in an earlier reply to Per that I'll add some more info to
website and archive but give me some time as $iXhash ne $dayjob