spam score for each test in header

[Julian Field]

3 patches attached.

At 19:19 15/05/2003, you wrote:
>That looks great! :)
>
>Would it be possible for you to post a patch that implements just the
>following?  We aren't ready to upgrade to the latest version of MS until
>we can fully test it (using Sophos SAVI, etc).  But the change below
>would easily be testable and implementable in the short run :-)
>
>Scott
>
>--On Thursday, May 15, 2003 5:18 PM +0100 Julian Field
><mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>>Very good idea. No sooner said than done :-)
>>
>>X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=7.8, required 5,
>>          DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 0.21, DRASTIC_REDUCED 1.54, HOME_EMPLOYMENT
>>1.50,          INVALID_DATE 0.57, INVALID_MSGID 0.38, NO_REAL_NAME 0.73,
>>          ONCE_IN_LIFETIME 0.74, REMOVE_SUBJ 0.81, UNDISC_RECIPS 1.44)
>>
>>Does that look okay to you?
>>I would like to keep the original sort order (alphabetical) to make the
>>code simpler.
>>
>>I'll release something later this evening if you like. It will make it to
>>the stable release at the start of June.
>>
>>At 15:54 15/05/2003, you wrote:
>>>Actually, I have been thinking the same thing.  Users would like to
>>>know *which* rule added the most to the total score, or if there were
>>>rules that subtracted off some point, it would be nice to know which
>>>ones did that and by how much...  Obviously, I have access to the rule
>>>files and can look them up, but most cannot.
>>>
>>>If we had an option to turn on the score values in the header, it
>>>would be quite useful!
>>>
>>>Scott
>>>
>>>--On Thursday, May 15, 2003 3:07 PM +0100 Sylvain Phaneuf
>>><sylvain.phaneuf at IMSU.OXFORD.AC.UK> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but I am wondering
>>>>how difficult would that be to put the score of each spam test in the
>>>>X-MailScanner-Information header?
>>>>
>>>>e.g. MIME_HTML_ONLY 0.1 ; IN_REP_TO -3.3 ; DATE_INFUTURE_12_24 2.37 ;
>>>>SPACES_IN_SUBJECT 2.42 ; MS_EXCHANGE -5.80
>>>>
>>>>Every now and then we have users who are suprised that a specific
>>>>message has not been picked up as spam and we need to explain to them.
>>>>Other less frequent situations are when we try to determine why a
>>>>message is a false positive. We need to manually dig out the scores for
>>>>each test and then see what would need changing.
>>>>
>>>>This is a feature I have seen with some commercial products, and it
>>>>seems to be popular.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sylvain
>>>>
>>>>===========================================================
>>>>Sylvain Phaneuf --- Computing Manager   | phone : +44 (0)1865 221323
>>>>Information Management Services Unit  -  Medical Sciences Division
>>>>Oxford University                               | email :
>>>>sylvain.phaneuf at imsu.ox.ac.uk  Room 3A25B John Radcliffe Hospital      |
>>>>fax :  +44 (0) 1865 221322 Oxford   OX3 9DU   England
>>>>===========================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>      Scott W. Adkins                http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/
>>>   UNIX Systems Engineer                  mailto:adkinss at ohio.edu
>>>        ICQ 7626282                 Work (740)593-9478 Fax (740)593-1944
>>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>     PGP Public Key available at
>>>http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/pgp/</x-flowed>
>>
>>--
>>Julian Field
>>www.MailScanner.info
>>MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
>
>
>
>--
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>      Scott W. Adkins                http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/
>   UNIX Systems Engineer                  mailto:adkinss at ohio.edu
>        ICQ 7626282                 Work (740)593-9478 Fax (740)593-1944
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>     PGP Public Key available at
> http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/pgp/</x-flowed>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SA.pm.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1293 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20030515/8b33aa3f/SA.pm.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ConfigDefs.pl.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 643 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20030515/8b33aa3f/ConfigDefs.pl.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MailScanner.conf.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 580 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20030515/8b33aa3f/MailScanner.conf.obj
-------------- next part --------------
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support