Asus RT-AC68U Dual-band Wireless-AC1900 Gigabit Router
Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display (15-inch, 2014)
2015 Hyundai Genesis sedan 5.0 RWDstars
Hyundai's new luxury sedan gives us more of everything we liked about the original with...
Beats Studio Wireless Series
Symantec Norton AntiSpam 2005
When the first version of Symantec's Norton AntiSpam debuted last year, it earned CNET's top honors. This year, however, Norton AntiSpam 2005 relinquishes its spam-fighting crown to . While both products integrate into Outlook or Outlook Express, Norton was substantially less effective at stopping spam and in our tests was far more troublesome to use.
Installing Norton AntiSpam isn't nuisance-free. Once the software copies to your hard disk, Norton updates itself and asks you to reboot. You'll also have to activate the program within two weeks, or Norton AntiSpam will stop working. Activation is a painless process but a hassle nonetheless. After you reboot and launch Outlook or Outlook Express, Norton AntiSpam asks if you want it to set itself up as a toolbar inside the program. It's good that the app asks, but we expected Norton AntiSpam to integrate more efficiently with Outlook.
From there, Norton AntiSpam works like MailFrontier Desktop does, shunting suspect spam into a separate folder and letting you flag missed spam or legit messages by clicking toolbar buttons within Outlook or Outlook Express. In theory, the app learns what is spam and what is not. At its default setting, Norton AntiSpam trapped slightly less than 90 percent of the junk, with about 10 percent false positives in informal tests. That made it less effective than MailFrontier Desktop, which trapped more than 90 percent and had fewer false positives. Worse, Norton AntiSpam 2005 was extremely sluggish. On several different test beds, it took about a minute to move a single piece of spam from our Inbox to the Norton folder. Often we couldn't do anything else with our test system until Norton AntiSpam had finished. (Symantec's technical support was unable to explain this behavior.) Simply deleting the junk would have been faster.