FollowUp: SV: SV: SV: SV: Spamassassin and header tagging

[Julian Field]

At 18:48 16/10/2002, you wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:02, Julian Field wrote:
> > At 12:08 16/10/2002, you wrote:
> > >Hi
> > >I noticed that even if the score is 34 it will only put 20 sss...
> > >in the header, I that because the
> > >#high spamassassin score = 20  ?
> > >Just curiouse...
> > >
> > >X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: SpamAssassin (score=33.2, required 5,
> > >         HOME_EMPLOYMENT, etc.....
> > >X-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssssssssssssssssssss
> >
> > I can't reproduce this behaviour, it appears to work okay. What happens if
> > you set the high spamassassin score to 10? Do they all get chopped at 10
> > characters then?
> >
> > The code looks fine (let's hope it's not another subtle perl bug...)
> >
>He's not talking about the v4 code, but rather about a patched copy of
>the v3 code that implements the same type of X-MailScanner-SpamScore
>header. My patch has code that limits the number of 's's in the string
>to be a max of 20. Obviously the max could be higher, I've just never
>seen a need for it to be more that 20. My original implementation of the
>SpamScore (before V4 existed) didn't impose a max limit. But then
>someone set a couple of SpamAssassin scores to 100 (to force certain
>messages to be spam) and a message hit about three of those. Some of the
>client filters just weren't prepared to handle a string that long and
>they went ga-ga. You might want to consider imposing a max length on the
>SpamScore string in v4.

Thankyou for the clarification. I have imposed a max of 60 on the length of
the SpamScore header, which shouldn't be so long as to break any email
clients :-)

>I know that you are trying to get v4 "out the door", but I'd invite you
>to take a look at my previous message in this thread and consider using
>that patch (or a modified version thereof) in the v3 code. There are a
>lot of differences between v3 & v4 (and I think they are good) and I'm
>sure that there will be folks continuing to use the v3 code for a while
>yet until V4 stabilizes and other things that a site might have that are
>dependent on the V3 structure and files can be re-done for v4. The
>SpamScore capability could be something that others still running V3
>might find useful.

Fair point.
--
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