http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3367
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-11 00:39 ------- Okay, I definitely -1 on not parsing and then including message/rfc822 into the body by default. >just because there's a spam attachment message, doesn't mean the whole >message should be considered spam anyway. mailman notification and >(imnsho) DSNs are examples of this -- non-spam email messages that may >contain spam messages as an attachment, not as an advertisement. I'm completely unconvinced this is the right solution or even that there is some problem that remains to be solved. We've always scanned message/rfc822 attachments and we should continue to do so. Adding another advanced option when nobody has complained about this issue is only making SA more complicated than it needs to be. -1 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
