[Spambayes] Other pop3proxy options

Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions tim at fourstonesExpressions.com
Wed Feb 19 16:26:41 EST 2003

Great set of requirements!  I'll make it so asap.  Watch the checkin list... - 

2/19/2003 4:06:02 PM, "Zander" <zander at zan.com> wrote:

>I think this will be necessary to change - because I can't seem to construct
>a filter in OE6 that will use your current To: <disposition>; ... munging
>strategy to classify my spam properly.  [Not only that, but a "Reply To All"
>gets awkward...]
>Your notes say something about  "contains 'spam' followed by a comma" - but
>that doesn't work in OE.  I tried contains "spam;" [followed by a
>semicolon - which is the address separator], but that too doesn't work.  If
>I use "contains 'spam'" - obviously that's wrong because it pulls, for
>example, the spambayes mailinglist posts ;-)
>So... I think that the
>    a. To: munging doesn't work as written now in OE6 AFAICT.
>    b. There should be the option of To:, Subject; [or CC:, or whatever]
>munging (why not make it a variable)
>    c. The replace token should be configurable: ie: <null>, [***SPAM***],
>or [!@#Mycust0m Flag*&*&%].
>        i. The reason for including the <null> above is that *I* would
>prefer to leave 'ham' untouched, while marking SPAM obviously, and probably
>marking unsure subtly.
>- Z
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions" <tim at fourstonesExpressions.com>
>To: <ham>; <SpamBayes at python.org>; "Zander" <zander at zan.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [Spambayes] Other pop3proxy options
>> 2/19/2003 12:46:07 PM, "Zander" <zander at zan.com> wrote:
>> >I would like to extend the options for how disposition is identified by
>> pop3proxy implementation.  In particular, I would like the option of
>> >
>> >A. X-Spambayes-Classification: <disposition>  as now
>> >B. To: XXXXX <disposition> as is in CVS now
>> >C. Subject line munging to append <disposition>
>> >
>> >Is there any reason that was not included? (beside the obvious potential
>> a spammer to slip in a workaround)  I use Outlook Express, and obviously
>> use the arbitrary header technique - and am most interested in adding a
>> [***SPAM***] header so that I can correctly bucketize those messages - but
>> leave [***UNSURE***] in my primary box, and not molest ham messages at
>> >
>> >Is there any reason not to do this?  Would you accept it if I did?  Is
>> any reason why you aren't using the email module Parser API to crack the
>> headers?
>> Subject munging will be simple to add, and I can do it.  Stay tuned.
>>   I have found a certain number of messages are not parsed correctly by
>the re
>> that you are using.  They show up as From: (none) Subj: (none) in the UI
>> We've recently seen some problems with malformed mails.  We're examining
>> issue (see the email package use thread)
>>  - but I haven't determined why just yet (though I can see that some part
>> the message is getting stuck with the header by your re.split(r'\n\r?\n',
>> messageText, 1) expression.
>> >
>> >- Z
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Spambayes mailing list
>> >Spambayes at python.org
>> >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes
>> >
>> >
>> c'est moi - TimS
>> http://www.fourstonesExpressions.com
>> http://wecanstopspam.org

c'est moi - TimS

More information about the Spambayes mailing list