<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.18.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY LINK="#0000ff">
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 13:12 +0100, Jason Ede wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<B>From:</B> mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Noel Butler<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> 10 May 2010 12:31<BR>
<B>To:</B> mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: watermark and spam<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 08:51 +0100, Julian Field wrote: <BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
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?
</PRE>
<BR>
perhaps an entry in the spam report that says the same as the hidden header?<BR>
I don't think it needs a score, just an entry saying why it was deemed as spam, what do you think ?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
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..<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>