[spambayes-dev] 1.0 Build Testing (please!)

[Tony Meyer]

> We may need to consider some changes to the format of the 
> information we add. The spec seems to indicate that the { and 
> } characters are legal in an e-mail address, but I've rarely 
> if ever seen them used. Maybe something like 
> "{spam}original at address" instead of the comma-separator?

I would prefer to keep them separated, so that if you do reply, you just
delete an invalid address, rather than have to modify one.  (Or if you just
send it anyway, at least the message gets through, as well as you getting a
bounce).

> It would obviously require people to modify their filter rules, 

This would be ok with 1.1, but not with 1.0.1 (i.e. the 1.0_release_branch
branch.

> but it doesn't appear that rules for the current format would 
> work correctly anyway.

Well, it works.  It doesn't deal well with mail that also has "spam" in the
To: header, but then notating the subject doesn't work with mail that has
"spam," in the subject, either.  It's more a limitation than a bug, IMO.

I think that this won't be so important once there's a release that fixes
the bug that stops people using a different trio of classification terms.
Then people can just select something that they know they'll never see, and
the rest of us with decent mailers can just get on with things as normal.

(If we were to change anything, I would replace the comma with a space.
Then people could change the classification names to "[spam]", "{spam}",
"{[(jjuunnkk)]}" or whatever, as they pleased, and it would look relatively
neat).

=Tony Meyer