Re: Problem with SpamAssassin processing already SpamAssassinated mail

[Owen McShane <om...@vianetworks.co.uk>]

> 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