[Spambayes] can't get spam bayes to work

[Tim Peters]

[Louise Hirsch]
> Tony, the only reason I sent the e-mails to you was because I had received
> an e-mail from you.  I'm so sorry you find it necessary to continually
> berate me

I suppose offense is in the eye of the offended, but what I've seen
here is Tony trying to be helpful and you taking offense.  He's trying
to get more information -- that's all.

>--all I've done is ask for help, and you send me a file telling me
> how to ask smart questions, implying that I've been asking stupid
> questions.

"How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" (the title of Eric Raymond's
essay) isn't about the content of questions, it's about how questions
are _asked_.  No question is "stupid", but it's quite possible to ask
questions in _ways_ such that you'll never get a useful answer.

Now, like it or not, OE is a feeble email client, and Microsoft has
gone out of its way to make it hard to extend.  It's in their interest
to have you buy the full-blown Outlook instead, and OE is missing all
the features (which are in Outlook) that make it possible for third
parties to extend OE pleasantly.  So just know in advance that setting
up this program to work with OE is necessarily harder than it is for
many other email clients.  Patience and a presumption of good will are
highly recommended.

> This is my fifth e-mail.  In my very first e-mail I told you that I had
> downloaded spambayes, installed it, followed all the instructions and it
> wasn't working.

Case in point.  This is your original email:

    I'm running Windows XP, Outlook Express.

That was helpful information.

    I downloaded Spam Bayes,

That too.

    but now what?  The instructions might as well be in Chinese.  I simply can't
    make heads or tails of anything in there.

You didn't say you installed it.  And quite the opposite of saying you
"followed all the instructions", you said you couldn't make any sense
whatsoever out of _any_ of the instructions.  Then you went on to ask
for a complete rewrite of the instructions, without explaining
anything more about what you did, what you saw happen as a result, or
what you expected to happen instead (all basic points covered in
Eric's essay).

Tony doesn't know what you did, or what you tried, or even what you
mean by that it "doesn't work".  He's not telepathic.  You have to
explain your actions, results and expectations clearly enough so that
someone on the other side of the world can deduce every relevant
detail.

> You sent me to the faq's, despite the fact that I had already told you that I
> had done that (i.e., followed all instructions.)

Sorry, I think it's simply unreasonable to expect someone to read "I
simply can't make heads or tails of anything" as "I followed all
instructions".  Specifically which step of the instructions in the FAQ
did you get stuck on?  For example, you didn't get stuck on

    1. Download the latest version of SpamBayes from the download page. 

It's been hard to guess so far whether you got beyond step 2:

    2. Run the installer - you want "sb_server", not the Outlook plug-in. 

Take it step by step, and your problem will get solved.

...
> And here we are, five e-mails later, and the best you can come up with is to
> tell me that I ask stupid questions.

He's not saying that.  He's saying that if you want help (which is
fine!), you need to help those trying to help you.  These are
technical problems, so resolutions depend on knowing details.

> I realize you're a volunteer, and that this program is offered free of
> charge, but why can't it be simpler to operate?

As above, OE is difficult to work with.  You would, for example, have
a much easier time with the full Outlook product.

> If you would like me to rewrite the instructions in a format so that people who
> are not computer scientists can read it, I'd be happy to volunteer for that aspect.

That would be great!  What you get here is the total of what others
contribute, and improving the parts you found too hard is exactly how
progress gets made in a project of this kind.