https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6890
--- Comment #11 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #10) > > grep -E '^X-Spam-Level: \*{8,} > > So grepping is as efficient as checking a process's return value? Of course not. But if *that* difference makes such a huge deal to you, you must be shocked when you figure out SA itself is written in Perl, not C... > > BTW, which variant of "rewriting" are you using? Rewriting headers, or > > attaching the spam to a wrapper message? > > Rewriting headers. Good, so you have the headers I referred to. :) However, this also makes me wonder why exactly you are using this approach -- other than optimization. With rewriting headers (report_safe 0), there is about one difference in rewriting: The X-Spam-Report header with rules' scores and descriptions. Your comment 0 suggests rewriting would not happen for ham -- which is false for header rewriting. X-Spam headers are added always, with some (by default) being restricted to spam. You can change that and add them unconditionally. So your 3..8 gray area will be "rewritten" just the same as spam, which is what you want. (Granted, ham gets this header, too.) By setting required_score 8, spamc exits with the desired code... Jez, please don't get me wrong -- it is great to see you contributing the patch that fixes a particular issue for you. This is open source at its best. I am always open to being convinced. However, at this point, this is just an extreme over-optimization edge case, and borderline consistent with SA terms. My personal opinion is against inclusion in upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
