I always mark spam as spam and google does a good job of learning moving spam into spam box with false positives and false negatives being rare.

Google has been slower for me than usual though.

OS X mail doesn't have any heuristics, right? No Bayesian shit happening in the background?

Because many of my primary email accounts don't come through gmail. My domain host is decent at cutting out much of the spam, but it's tiresome how often I still see the exact same shit come through. At least with Eudora I felt I was accomplishing something by junking.

It's supposed to.

[link]

I assume there's something in the algorithm that makes tossing duplicates of things you've marked as spam, but the visible body text is often repeated (AFAICT) multiple times over a month. It's tiring...

I end up paying Google for Postini. I haven't found anything else works as well.

For most purposes Google has great spam filters. Though they failed for ita !'s photo sight cause she gets legit mail with words like "naked" and "hot" in them. I wonder if Google is missing a niche market by not selling a tweaked version of their spam filter as a service to people who run sites where you might need need exceptions to the standard filter.

Yeah, I might need to pay for Postini.

I'm also getting a ton of spam to my donations address. Whereas the dirty address that I use deliberately to fill in web forms? Totally clean. IDEK.

So Douglas Crockford, author of JavaScript: The Good Parts and creator of the JSLint site says "Do not use String as a constructor."

IOW, don't do this:

strObj = new String("puppies!");

(strObj becomes a string object in this example.)

But AFAIK this is not a universal opinion. I'm still trying to understand why Crockford says this.

Any thoughts/opinions?

eta:

He says:

Do not use new Number, new String, or new Boolean. These forms produce unnecessary object wrappers. Just use simple literals instead.

[link]

Oh. But sometimes I need a string object.

I agree with Crockford. The JavaScript virtual machine is responsible for making string literals behave exactly like a string object constructed with new. I can't think of any case where you would need to use new String(). Where do you find you need to?

So

strObj = new String("puppies!");

will produce the same object as

strObj = {"puppies!"};

?

Mostly I learned Javascript by editing code that our consultant developers wrote. Now I'm trying to actually understand what's going on.