[antispam-f] Re: Recent Id: and Ref: Spams
- From: Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:27:18 +0100
In article <684570aa4e.ricp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Porter <ricp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2007 Frank de Bruijn wrote:
[snip]
> > The current alpha's of 1.60 already have an expanded action header
> > feature, so adding this would certainly be an option. What exactly would
> > you want the xx value to represent?
> I'd be happy with a rule "FLAG" and a corresponding X-AntiSpam-Action,
> but with the option to specify my own text as with the other actions.
> If anything extra is needed it could be the rule number that caught
> it. The 'accept' action should be left as it is.
> My own requirement (as mentioned above) is just to be able to filter
> detected spam into the Spam folder as with SpamStamp, have a quick
> look through for false positives and then bounce the whole lot at
> PlusNet's despamchecker, not that that does any good.
> Actually what would be really nice would be the ability to divert spam
> into the 'checked' directory, by-passing SpamStamp, but if it goes
> through two processes that's no great problem. Thinking about it, you
> really only need to bung defaulted messages through SS, and that would
> cut out a bit of cpu time.
This sounds a bit like something that can already be done using the
Divert action and a suitable UserAction header.
If you set AntiSpam to save diverted messages to a file in the 'checked'
directory, switch off the manual checking of diverted messages, switch
on the X-AntiSpam-Action header and enter the string:
{default}- {accept}- {header}- {divert}="SPAM!"
in the User Action header field, AntiSpam would save diverted messages
with the extra header:
X-AntiSpam-Action: SPAM!
The X-header would be suppressed for the other actions.
Of course this assumes you don't use Divert for anything else.
Regards,
Frank
Other related posts:
