<?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: Firefox 2.0.0.1 RC1 And Thunderbird 2.0 Beta RC1 Available</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/</link>
	<description>Technology News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:26:55 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/comment-page-1/#comment-49061</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49061</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised you notice that much of a difference. There were more than 100 bug fixes I think but nothing I have noticed so far.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised you notice that much of a difference. There were more than 100 bug fixes I think but nothing I have noticed so far.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lebowski</title>
		<link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/comment-page-1/#comment-49057</link>
		<dc:creator>Lebowski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:48:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49057</guid>
		<description>2.0.0.1 runs hell of alot better than 2.0.  Its a very very nice surprise</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2.0.0.1 runs hell of alot better than 2.0.  Its a very very nice surprise</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/comment-page-1/#comment-49054</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49054</guid>
		<description>&lt;div id=&quot;commentquote&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-49034&quot;&gt;CoryC wrote:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#039;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express don&#039;t play very nice together. I recently decided to try out Outlook 2007 because I have never used it before. I have to admit that it is pretty nice but it took me a long long time to get my emails moved over from Thunderbird.

&lt;div id=&quot;commentquote&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-49046&quot;&gt;SLA wrote:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! :)
I had to drop my &quot;The Bat!&quot; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &quot;Baesian&quot; spam protection didn&#039;t filter spam well.
And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
Thunderbird&#039;s spam filter didn&#039;t seem to do a good enough job for me and that is one of the reasons I switched to Outlook (as mentioned above). The most common that passed the filter were written in either Japanese or Chinese (I&#039;m not sure which one) but they were quite annoying. Outlook catches them with no problem at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="commentquote"><a href="#comment-49034">CoryC wrote:</a><br />
<blockquote>Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#8217;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.</p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express don&#8217;t play very nice together. I recently decided to try out Outlook 2007 because I have never used it before. I have to admit that it is pretty nice but it took me a long long time to get my emails moved over from Thunderbird.</p>
<div id="commentquote"><a href="#comment-49046">SLA wrote:</a><br />
<blockquote>Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! <img src='http://cybernetnews.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
I had to drop my &#8220;The Bat!&#8221; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &#8220;Baesian&#8221; spam protection didn&#8217;t filter spam well.<br />
And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.</p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>Thunderbird&#8217;s spam filter didn&#8217;t seem to do a good enough job for me and that is one of the reasons I switched to Outlook (as mentioned above). The most common that passed the filter were written in either Japanese or Chinese (I&#8217;m not sure which one) but they were quite annoying. Outlook catches them with no problem at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SLA</title>
		<link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/comment-page-1/#comment-49046</link>
		<dc:creator>SLA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49046</guid>
		<description>Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! :)
I had to drop my &quot;The Bat!&quot; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &quot;Baesian&quot; spam protection didn&#039;t filter spam well.
And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! <img src='http://cybernetnews.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
I had to drop my &#8220;The Bat!&#8221; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &#8220;Baesian&#8221; spam protection didn&#8217;t filter spam well.<br />
And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CoryC</title>
		<link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/comment-page-1/#comment-49034</link>
		<dc:creator>CoryC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49034</guid>
		<description>Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#039;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#8217;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
