Once I realized how easy it was to add new header rewrite functions, I just
hacked my own in. If anyone's interested, the diff follows.
--- Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm.bak 2006-08-03 13:52:55.000000000
-0500
+++ Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm 2006-08-03 14:24:02.000000000 -0500
@@ -1230,6 +1230,13 @@
AUTOLEARN => sub { return $self->get_autolearn_status(); },
+ GAUGE => sub {
+ my $arg = (shift || "*");
+ my $length = int($self->{score} / 10);
+ $length = 5 if $length > 5;
+ return $arg x $length;
+ },
+
TESTS => sub {
my $arg = (shift || ',');
return (join($arg, sort(@{$self->{test_names_hit}})) ||
"none");
Chris St. Pierre
Unix Systems Administrator
Nebraska Wesleyan University
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Chris St. Pierre wrote:
>I'm switching to SpamAssassin from PureMessage. One feature I'm used to is
>the GAUGE, which is used in rewriting headers much the same way as
>_STARS(*)_. PureMessage differs from SpamAssassin in that it uses a
>percentage rather than a score for determining if something is spam -- things
>are 0% to 100% likely to be spam.
>
>GAUGE inserted one star for every 10% over the spam threshold. This mean, for
>us, that you could never get more than six stars, and our subjects ranged from
>[SPAM:*] to [SPAM:******]. Now that I'm using SpamAssassin with a spam
>threshold of 5 and trying to do the same thing, my subjects range from
>[SPAM:*****] to [SPAM:***...***], the latter of which is downright
>unreadable.
>
>Is there either: a) any way to get _STARS(*)_ to be a little less verbose; or
>b) use a different tag to get a similar effect?
>
>I'm aware that I'll most likely be unable to duplicate the behavior I'm
>accustomed to, but I'd like to give my users as much consistency as possible.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Chris St. Pierre
>Unix Systems Administrator
>Nebraska Wesleyan University
>
