Bi Bill, thanks for your reply. Bill Cole wrote:
> Depending on the specific sort of analysis you are doing, it may be > feasible to do it with a construct of SA rules, and that would avoid the > housekeeping issues of how to integrate a 'preprocessor' with your > existing MTA and whatever yopu're using as 'glue' for SA. > (content_filter script, spamass-milter, MIMEDefang, etc.) I am running SA from Procmail. Integrating my analysis is rather easy for this case. I also think its not possible to do this purely as SA rules because my analysis is statistical and requires the use of an external databse. > If you are absolutely set on the design concept of putting something in > front of SA, that's probably better. OR, if this is intended mainly to > protect non-spam, only tag that. In any case, you'll need custom SA > rules to understand any sort of meaning in what you add. Its not so much that I am set on a design concept as that I because there is a learning step, that looks at Spam and Ham (much like SA iteself) and then butilds a database which is used during the analysts of each input email. I have used SA rules before and I think the best option is to add headers to email (tagging both spam and ham) and then using SA rules to detect these new headers. Thanks Bill, your response helped me clarify my direction. Cheers, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
