> On Tue, 25 May 2004, Owen McShane said:
> > I would avoid doing any filtering based on X-Spam-Status at all.
> >
> > Had a colleague who was filtering on the "X-Spam-Status" header containing
> > "yes".
> >
> > Not surprisingly, headers such as this were matching:
> >
> > X-spam-status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE
> >
> > Use X-spam-flag instead (just if it exists, forget any content).
>
> The thing to do there is filter intelligently. Searching for `yes'
> is not intelligent. :)
>
> e.g. a procmail rule reading something like
>
> :0 H:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: +(yes|no), +hits=\/[^. ]*
> * ? (( ${MATCH} > 9 ))
> spambox
The thing to do, as I stated above, is to look for the X-spam-flag header...
forget X-Spam-Status.
I take your point re the regex, but it's unneccessary if you're just filtering
on SA's decision on what is spam.
Owen
--
Via Net.Works UK Ltd
Local Touch Global Reach
Owen McShane Systems Administrator
http://www.vianetworks.co.uk Tel +44 (0)1925 484444
