You can do this already, simply set-up a filter where you filter on the x-spam* header, as appropriate.
The junk/not junk will run through the sa-learn stuff, it doesn't actually move the mail anywhere, the junk folder is only a vfolder. If you already have the subject altered, you can similarly just mark the mail as junk in a filter. On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 12:32 -0500, Rick DeNatale wrote: > On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 23:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Well, I've got to put all that lot into the docs, but here's a quick summary: > > > > * Spamassassin only. Want another system? Pipe to shell script (Now "Run > > Command"). > > For those of us who have already been using SpamAssassin, and have users > who use other Mail Clients, it would be really nice if Evo would support > a mode of using SA in which the mail has already been filtered and > tagged with SA. While the integration of MTA/MDA functions into the > client is attractive to some folks in certain situations, allowing > things to work in a more loosely coupled manner would also be useful. > > Right now I use a vfolder to filter for [SPAM] in the subject. I handle > ham and uncaught spam by having local folders called "Surviving Spam" > and "Ham" and moving e-mail to those folders. I then have a shell script > which I run periodically which uses sa-learn to train on these mailboxes > and in the case of ham formail and spamassassin -d to get the mail back > into it's "original" form and put it in a local mailbox called processed > ham. > > I'd like to be able to use the junk and not-junk buttons to do this. > > I'm assuming that junk uses sa-learn to train sa that the mail is spam, > and then moves it to junk, and that not-junk trains it as ham, get's it > back in it's original form and then moves it back to the inbox. > > I'm not sure what filter junk does. > > If Evo could be told to just look at the subject for the [SPAM] tag, > perhaps with a way to override the actual tag and send those to the junk > folder, then the other functions (junk/not junk) would just work. It > might take a little more to work with site-wide filtering, but I'm not > currently using that. > > If I have a filter which looks for the tag, and sets the status to junk, > should this work? > > > > > > * The "Local tests only" will check your bayesian methods and known > > suspiciousness tests, but won't use the online blackhole lists and so > > forth. > > > > * For enhanced performance, start the daemon (as root) and select "Use > > Daemon." > > > > * Server side spam filtering is almost always better. Local spam filtering > > means you have to download it and then filter and then discard. > > Server-side means it happens before you get there, so you don't have to > > wait for filtration to happen. Although server-side is harder to train... > > (not integrated into Evo in any way). > > > > And that's what I'd like to see a little better integration with server > side filtering. > > _______________________________________________ > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
