Generic spam plug-in

[Adri Koppes]

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]On
> Behalf Of Rakesh
> Sent: 06 June, 2005 08:04
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Generic spam plug-in
> 
> 
> Dhawal Doshy wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Julian Field wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If I write you folks a generic way of adding in a spam-processing 
> >> plugin, how would you like it to work?
> >> A command-line or a function call?
> >> How do you want the envelope data? (client ip, sender, recipients)
> >>
> >> Returns a spam yes/no flag, or a score to add to SpamAssassin?
> >> Or a yes/no flag with a configurable score in MailScanner.conf?
> >>
> >> How do you actually want this interface to work?
> >>
> >
> > Command lines sound easier compared to functions for a 
> non-programmer 
> > like me.
> >
> <snip>
> 
> > Situation one (as already proposed by Julian)
> > =============
> > The 3rd party engine outputs SPAM / NOTSPAM, in which case use the 
> > following flags
> > a. NO (surely not spam)
> > b. YES (surely spam)
> > c. SKIPPED (if no output is found)
> >
> > Situation two
> > =============
> > The 3rd party engine outputs a %age or a number (say -100 to +100) 
> > then the input filter will watch for a number and based on 
> that give 
> > the following flag
> > a. NO (surely not spam)
> > b. MOSTLY_NO (mostly not spam)
> > c. MOSTLY_YES (probably spam)
> > d. YES (surely spam)
> > e. SKIPPED (if no number is found)
> >
> > Flag Action: (again as recommended by Julian)
> > The above flags NO,(MOSTLY_NO),(MOSTLY_YES),YES,SKIPPED with a 
> > configurable score in MailScanner.conf seem most flexible to me.
> >  
> 
> I agree with Dhawal on the Scoring mechanism of the plugin, 
> which should
> be configurable in MailScanner.conf , however I feel that it should be
> invoked using function call instead of command line. A function call
> would be efficient in terms of processesing and since this plugin is
> going to be called from with in MailScanner, I think we need 
> not bother
> much on its command line version.
> 
> Rakesh

I agree a function call might be more efficient, but since this is supposed to be a generic plug-in, I think we should always have to option to use a command line version and process the output via a pipe, exit code or temporary file.
Using a function call would make the generic plug-in less generic, since you can then only use it for external programs which have a perl interface!

Adri.

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the Wiki (http://wiki.mailscanner.info/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!