Header change format

[Julian Field]

Is the outcome of all this that you would like the "SpamScore" header to be
empty (or maybe not even exist?) when the message is whitelisted?

Empty? Or not exist?

Any contributions or thoughts most welcome...

Jules.

At 16:31 19/11/2002, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
> > > There is no simple rule for Outlook etc. that would allow me to put
> > > all Spam-Mail in some folder. Currently I would have to put all
> > > possible X-MailScanner-SpamCheck Messages in the word list.
> > Proposal:
> >
> > Easy enough to do. You decide what spam score would be spam
> > and filter on the X-MailScanner-SpamScore header. For example
> > if you decided that anything wih a spam score of 5 was spam
> > you'd tell Outlook that any message whose
> > X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: header contained sssss should go
> > into a Spam folder.
>
>Yet if you use this even messages that are not spam (due to whitelist)
>but have a high SpamAssassin score are sorted out by the rule.
>Unfortunately Outlook cannot create rules like "Move message if
>X-MailScanner-Spamscore: sssss unless X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not
>spam"...
>
> > The MailScanner configuration sets the lower threshold that
> > triggers the inclusion of the SpamCheck/SpamScore headers.
> > Messages that garner a SpamAssassin score below that
> > threshold won't trigger the inclusion of those headers, and
> > thus "aren't spam'.
>
>So? Again think of whitelists. If a message is in the whitelist I do not
>care about the SpamScore from SpamAssassin. The whole point of the
>whitelist is to overrule SpamAssassin.
>
> > Because of the nature of the beast, it is quite possible to
> > see messages with a spam score of 10-12 or less that aren't
> > really spam, depending on who you get legitimate mail from.
>
>That is quite correct and the first exampled showed just that. But if I
>put something in the whitelist explicitely I do not what the message to
>be moved by my Outlook rule due to a SpamScore of 10 or so.
>
>The headers are very informational telling me that the message is not
>spam due to the whitelist but would have had a SpamAssassin score of 10.
>This is nice and informational but impossible for Outlook to use for
>rules. That is why I would love to see the simple extention to the
>X-MailScanner-SpamCheck header. It should be very easy to implement a
>(spam, not spam) message.
>
>Regards,
>   JP

--
Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
                             Southampton SO17 1BJ