[spambayes-dev] Regarding Whitelisting

[Anthony Baxter]

>>> "Mark Hammond" wrote
> [Aleem]
> > The users need it. I can know with certainty that the mail
> > from my potential employer will end up in my inbox and not
> > get lost with spam or overlooked in spam box, eventually
> > costing me my job. There is comfort in knowing that the mail
> > will show up in my inbox and I won't end up missing something
> > important.
> 
> I have to admit that I do find this argument fairly compelling.  I can
> perfectly understand the comfort level this would provide to users, given
> they didn't write the damn thing <wink>.  I fully understand a user choosing
> to risk forged spam etc for the sake of being absolutely sure the mail will
> not be filtered by us.  It is also an oft requested feature, which we should
> not igore.

Countered against this is the added complexity of the configuration and
then having to deal with the increased user feedback. At the moment, 
spambayes does one thing, and does it well. If adding whitelisting is 
so vital, rather than add it to the core tools, add an interface for 
plugins to get called before and after the scoring.


> However, the crux of the issue is as Sean said:
> [Sean]
> > But managing it is yet another pile of not very stimulating work.
> 
> But for SpamBayes, you have to add "implementing" too <wink>

Implementing the user interface is what's going to truly suck.

> The longer answer for
> the Outlook addin is for someone to implement it in a reasonable way and
> provide a patch.  As you can see from the other responses, it doesn't appear
> likely it will come from any of the existing developers (even if they did
> have the time, which they don't!)

Yep. I think the FAQ answer for whitelisting should possibly feature the
phrase "send code".


-- 
Anthony Baxter     <anthony at interlink.com.au>   
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.