watermark and spam

[Jason Ede]

From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Noel Butler
Sent: 10 May 2010 12:31
To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
Subject: Re: watermark and spam

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 08:51 +0100, Julian Field wrote:





On 10/05/2010 05:13, Noel Butler wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 01:25 +0200, Mikael Syska wrote:

>>

>> Does the average user even check that mail could be miss tagged, our

>> average users don't.

>>

>

> We have many that do, mostly corporate clients that inquire about it,

> but if it happens to corporate clients enough to concern them, the

> affect must be global and those home users must be  bothered as well.

> I modified our internal blurb to advise people on it long time ago,

> but thats not fixing the root cause, its only working around it,

> something im not fond of in any situation.

So how would you like it to work and how does that differ from what it

does now? And in *exactly* what circumstances do you want the change?


perhaps an entry in the spam report that says the same as the hidden header?
I don't think it needs a score, just an entry saying why it was deemed as spam, what do you think ?


Cheers


That is what happens already. The watermark state is added to the SA header, but if you put a score in for the action of failing the watermark check (i.e. +3) then the SA report in the email all the scores added up are 3 less than the total reported, which is causing confusion.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20100510/7955cea0/attachment.html