Header change format

[Julian Field]

At 17:01 19/11/2002, you wrote:
>Hi Julian,
>
> > 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?
>
>This would be one solution.
>
> > Empty? Or not exist?
>
>I do not care to be honest.
>
> > Any contributions or thoughts most welcome...
>
>The most simple and most flexible solution though would be to generate a
>definate SPAM or NOT SPAM within the header.

But I should only add "spam" when they have requested to always add the
header, as people can currently do spam filtering based on just the
presence of the SpamCheck header.

It all gets a bit murky, unfortunately, as I need to retain backward
compatibility for all the previous users, while providing a whizzy neat
solution that is simple for you.

The SpamScore proposal above is simple and doesn't create compatibility
problems.

But does it do enough of what you want? If not, I don't want to do it. But
if yes, then that will probably be my chosen solution.


>Examples for "real" spam:
>X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssasin (SCORE=....)
>X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, spamcop.net, SpamAssasin (SCORE=....)
>
>Example for a whitelisted which triggers SpamAssassin:
>
>X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, whitelisted, SpamAssasin (SCORE=....)
>
>If you implement this you could tell the mail client to only handle
>mails with "X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam" in the header. If possible
>one should be able to configure whether or not "not spam" messages
>should show the SpamAssassin score with "X-MailScanner-Spamscore: sssss"
>or not.
>
>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