26 lines
1007 B
Plaintext
26 lines
1007 B
Plaintext
Return-Path: anthony@interlink.com.au
|
|
Delivery-Date: Sat Sep 7 05:10:37 2002
|
|
From: anthony@interlink.com.au (Anthony Baxter)
|
|
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 14:10:37 +1000
|
|
Subject: [Spambayes] Maybe change X-Spam-Disposition to something else...
|
|
In-Reply-To: <15737.31513.555967.915801@12-248-11-90.client.attbi.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <200209070410.g874Ab620880@localhost.localdomain>
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> Skip Montanaro wrote
|
|
>
|
|
> I actually like Neale's X-Spam-Disposition header, I just wonder if maybe we
|
|
> should choose something with a different prefix than "X-Spam-" so that
|
|
> people don't confuse it with SpamAssassin, all of whose headers begin with
|
|
> that prefix.
|
|
|
|
I think it's fine, in general, just so long as no-one checks in anything
|
|
that puts it into my test corpus.
|
|
|
|
Or alternately, whatever is chosen should be ignored by the tokenizer.
|
|
I know my mail host (interlink) runs SA, but I also run it, with my own
|
|
set of rules and scores. I don't want my spam-filter to be getting messed
|
|
up by an upstream spam filter.
|
|
|
|
|