At 3:24 PM +0200 07/01/2013, Benny Pedersen wrote:
if content end user see is mangled, then end user cant relearn ham to be spam
Yes, they can, because SA sees the "mangled" email before the user
does. Therefore if SA misclassifies an email as ham, that exact same
email is the one seen by the end-user and can be reclassified as spam
via sa-learn.
yep point is that if it mangle both ham and spam, then digest would
create digest in bayes_50 :(
Only the MailScanner token would be seen in both ham and spam. There
are hundreds or thousands of other tokens.
there is no way around that, execpt dont use mailscanner, or patch
mangling to be removed
As discussed last week, we need to use MailScanner for security and I
prefer to keep the URL munging intact to disable web bugs.
this part does not work for spamassassin
As mentioned, it's _only_ this part that "does not work," but it
shouldn't be causing specific problems. By the way, this is also not
the issue with what I asked originally, which is: why didn't
LONGWORDS hit on this email, even though it seemed like it should?
That isn't caused by MailScanner.
BTW, I also mentioned last week that it should be pretty easy to
write a plugin for SA to "unmangle" the MailScanner URLs, because the
original URL is contained within the ALT attribute of the IMG tag.
This could be done prior to the Bayes analysis (or written as part of
the Bayes code). I unfortunately don't know enough about the guts of
SA to write such a plugin, at least not yet, but the algorithm itself
should be relatively straightforward given how MailScanner does its
URL mangling.
Cheers.
--- Amir
