Request for comments

[Matt Kettler]

Julian Field wrote:
> That would be easy to add. Would many people use it?
> It would just be an "Adjust SpamAssassin Score" configuration option.

I don't think that would be useful Julian. If they wanted to adjust the SA
score, that's easy to do in SA. It's also not what Steven was suggesting, at
least as far as I can tell.

As I understand it, Steven was to allow checking for a particular SA rule-hit in
a ruleset (ie: SPF_FAIL). Not to modify the score.

Unfortunately, the big question is what ruleset would you use this in?

This could be useful in a "Spam Actions" ruleset. You could then use specific SA
rules to further modify your spam actions.

But really this would almost need the creation of a "All Messages Actions"
ruleset. Because you'd really want to use it on all messages, not just ones over
the spam or high-spam score thresholds.

ie: If I wanted to quarantine all messages matching some rule, say one of the
ImageInfo or PDFInfo rules, I'd want to do it to all messages, even FN's.


> 
> I'm still unconvinced that adding the Subject matching would actually
> get used by many people. Very few people have said "yes, I have a
> definite need and a use for it".

I somewhat agree.. I could possibly see it to bypass SpamAssassin scanning based
on subject text, but other features of the message would be better for this than
subject lines.

(that said, matching a List-Id: or X-BeenThere: header might be nice for lists
that keep changing their sending servers.)

>> An alternative suggestion would be to allow MailScanner rulesets based
>> on SA rule names. This could be potentially far more flexible than just
>> based on the Subject:, enabling you to take action on just about
>> anything in the message. Simply write a custom rule, score it at 0.001
>> if you don't want it to affect the spam score, and trigger a MailScanner
>> action as a result. Got doubts about a new rule's false positive rate?
>> No problem, quarantine all messages that hit the rule. The possibilities
>> are endless.
>>
>> John.
>>
>>   
> 
> Jules
>