[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > What were the objections to using a hash of some selected headers (From, To, > Subject) and the message body, again? Strikes me this is a more resilient > way to avoid spammers using 1 message ID for all their spam and evading > bayes learning that way.
I agree. Let's move to using the hash in 3.0. I think the main concerns (I wouldn't say objections) were (or should be). 1. overhead of computing the hash (not a big deal, I think) 2. stability of the hash to minor changes (like whitespace in headers, whitespace at end of body, header sorting, Received headers, etc.) that could cause a mismatch in generated ID from one hashing to the next. 3. backward compatibility with existing Bayes databases. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
