watermark and spam

[Noel Butler]

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 13:12 +0100, Jason Ede wrote:
> 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, I don't know what email client you're using but it has zero
quoting sections in evolution making it difficult to know who said
what..

It appears you're right, we have it marking as "spam" we will change
that to a score value, It has been many years since I read the comments
in the conf files, I guess a lot has changed,  but it remains a point
that something I guess needs to be addressed  for all the others who
just use the "spam" option in that setting, anyway that's all I have to
say on the mater now.


Cheers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20100511/868f4670/attachment.html