[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 95
From: Anthony Howe
Date: 2004-09-24 09:06:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [LFN14080312] milter-spamc setup generating

Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
--------------------------------------------------------

Frank Heydlauf wrote:

> Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
> More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:33:05AM +0200, Anthony Howe wrote:
> ...
> 
>>The correct solution, is to contact the person who suggested the brian 
>>dead Exim configuration and have them correct it.
> 
> 
> Ask Derrick 'dman' Hudson <dman at dman13.dyndns.org> :-)
> 
> BTW - the idea is not really braindead - it just differs from yours.

It differs alot, because its not written as programmer would write it: 
you have a variable, you test its values.

> The only flaw is that it relies on a previous set X-Spam-Flag which is
> usually no problem (no known problems for >1year and millions
> of mails) because nobody sets a X-Spam-Flag without a reason.

The simple fact is that X-Spam-Flag is a boolean, therefore it can have 
two values (three if you count the its absence as a value too). Filters 
the chooses to act on this header therefore must test for YES, NO, or 
undefined/unknown.

> There are people who say: Altering or deleting Mail-Headers is evil.
> They must only be appended. If you Append a 2nd X-Spam-Flag you
> have to rely on every MUA and filter to take the correct (which is
> what?) X-Spam-Flag. That's the flaw in your setup.

milter-spamc prior to 0.13 used to follow this principal by prepending 
headers and maintaining a history. Derek Balling convinced me of the 
flaws of doing it that way, since simplistic filters done with procmail, 
Mozilla message filters, Outlook Express mail rules, and probably many 
more would probably match any X-Spam-Flag header if there was more than 
one, instead of just the first one.

The issue of prepending or replacing headers is a different 
question/debate. The question at hand is the insertion of `X-Spam-Flag: 
NO' header for ham.

> Maybe this should better be discussed on one of the spamassassin
> mailing lists to give us a common recommendation for all implementations.

Give me an IETF RFC or similar standards document that defines X-Spam-* 
headers and I'll implement it. Otherwise it open to interpretation.


-- 
Anthony C Howe                                 +33 6 11 89 73 78
http://www.snert.com/       ICQ:
7116561         AIM: Sir Wumpus

            "Once...we were here."  - Last of The Mohicans


Lists Index Date Thread Search