On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 15:32, Ettore Perazzoli wrote: > > Yeah, easy. Although then we run the risk of people who aren't using > > spam filters being duped by spam adding that header and saying it isn't > > spam. So it would probably have to be an explicit option for > > environments where the x-spam-status can be trusted. > > Hmm good point. I guess we could have a "trust existing message spam > status" setting? It might be confusing though.
Do we really need to worry about this? It seems odd to not trust this setting, since the only time you'll get a false negative is when people are up to no good anyway. Chris _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
