On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 00:39, Charlie Watts wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I like the idea of the multi-level thing, but instead of "filing" the
> message in folders (making SA an MDA?) I think it'd be better implemented by
> sticking alternate tags in the X-Spam-Status header such as:
>
> 0-5: X-Spam-Status: No
> 5-15: X-Spam-Status: Yes, Maybe
> 15-30: X-Spam-Status: Yes, Probably
> 30-: X-Spam-Status: Yes
>
> The reason for the "Yes" prefix on those last three is backward-compatible.
What does this give you?
Most MUA filters operate based on substring matches, not based on substring extraction
followed by
numeric comparison. So it's easy to match against X-Spam-Status contains "Maybe",
hard to match
against 5<int(last part of X-Spam-Status)<15
Messages are already tagged with numbers indicating spammishness. Is
adding "Maybe" and "Probably" just helpful because it makes filtering
easier? It really isn't adding any information.
Checking three folders for false positives wouldn't be any faster than
checking one is now ...
I agree. Someone asked for the feature, I don't think I'll use it, but
I was just suggesting a likely better way of implementing it.
From my point of view (I know others use SA differently) SA should just be
a filter. Pass messages through it for labeling. It shouldn't be
auto-reporting things or doing delivery. There are already tools to do
those things.
This is just labelling it. It's just slightly more information in the
label I guess. I fully subscribe to the notion that SA is a spam
filtering system (plus labelling) only, and have never personally used
-R or omitted either -P or -t.
C
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
