There is little cost to keeping the old names for backwards
compatability.
As for new names...
I agree with:
"raw" -- the entire undecoded message
That leaves two text rules -- one for the main body and one for
all of text components.
"text" or "body" both seem fine for the main body.
For all of the decoded text, I suggest "alltext". I don't like
"decoded" as the main distinction from "body" or "text" is that it
includes more parts. I especially don't like "rawdecoded" as there
is nothing raw about it.
Oh, and I have a suggestion for an addition one: "html" for decoded
html portions.
Thanks for listening,
-Dave
* I agree. I was going to suggest some sort of naming change to
* have the parts be more descriptive, but then you would have to worry
* about ruleset backward-compatibility. I suppose that's not a big
* deal, if SA were to treat both the old and new names as the same.
* Maybe this would be a good change for 3.0?
*
* I would suggest something like:
*
* Full -> Raw (as this really is the 'raw' message)
* Rawbody -> Decoded or RawDecoded (if this were just like the 'raw' message,
but with decoded parts)
* Body -> Text (just to make it more explicit that this is the text from the
message)
*
