[antispam-f] Re: Marking messages
- From: Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:26:30 +0100
In article <4e8bf19015tricia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tricia Garner <tricia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 26 Nov, in article <4e8bea41c1freelists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Mark Fraser <freelists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In article <4e8b6cf4e8antispam@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> > > So after run 2, all the messages added to the list during run 1 should
> > > be gone. If they aren't, there's something wrong.
> > Is there any way for AntiSpam to check to see if the emails are still on
> > the server and if not remove them from the list?
> Having carefully followed Frank's 'chain of events' just now, it worked
> perfectly. I had made a couple of changes. In the 'Scan' window in Choices
> I changed the number of days for expiry to 1 and also noticed that 'Use
> UIDL' wasn't ticked, so I ticked it. One or both seems to have done the
> trick.
Yes, using UIDL values instead of Message-IDs will make the process more
reliable. Some messages don't have a Message-ID, but it seems the UIDL
command is always implemented, even though it is an optional extension
of the POP3 protocol.
I think it's time to remove the option and use UIDL values by default.
I'll let the program make the switch automatically, falling back to
using Message-IDs in case UIDL isn't supported.
Regards,
Frank
Other related posts:
