MailScanner with MailWatch - add-ons and enhancements?

[Glenn Steen]

On 19/02/07, am.lists <am.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because of how well MailWatch seems to work with MailScanner, I assume
> most of the people on this list are using both together. I know that's
> an assumption, but it seems like a popular one.
>
> I notice that the MailWatch portion seems rather stable but at the
> same time, a bit outdated. Are there other GUIs that might be more up
> to date and provide some greater functionality?
No, this is it:-). There is a 2.0 in the works, but Steve hasn't
produced more than tantalizing tidbits (there is a 2.0 wishlist in the
MailWatch wiki at http://mailwatch.sf.net), and a
working/work-in-progress demo of the interface... Search the
_MailWatch list_ archives for a link to that.

There are options though ...
> Here's my wants/needs list:
>
> Need: Redesign the user quarantine emails
> Want: Reskin them per domain, with a default skin where no
> domain-based skin is found.
These mail notices are either generated by MailScanner, or by the
quarantine report ... Depends entirely on what you mean;-). If by
MailScanner, you can use a ruleset to make different reports to
different domains.

> Need: Rework the quarantine reports: Add "release and learn as ham"
> and "delete and learn as spam" buttons or links to the messages
> Want: Ability to mix users requests to do quarantine reports daily or
> weekly or per-message. (Right now I can only do it as daily or weekly
> and the low-spam notify messages always come through immediately)
I imagine you can write this yourself:-). It would likely fit better
with what is planned for 2.0 than 1.x though.

> Need: Get rid of the "MailScanner has detected a possible fraud
> attempt" written inline in messages. I know why MS does this, but
> these days, with the way newsletters are written, links are written
> one way but the hrefs go somewhere else that track the click as a
> redirect... Unfortunately seemingly everyone does this now, so I'm not
> sure how I really feel about it. I would rather just disarm the hrefs.
> Is this possible?
This again is pure MailScanner... Either turn off the Phishing net or
whitelist the culprits (domain part of address/URL). You do the latter
by adding them (or a pattern that would match) to the phishing safe
sites file (might need a reload of MS after that). You might help us
all by reporting your additions to Jules for inclusion....;-)

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se