[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Spam despite spam header
From: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: Spam despite spam header |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:40:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) |
asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:
>> Of course, but it doesn't do much good if the
>> headers are only inserted and that will be that,
>> does it?
>
> What else do you propose should(/suppose would)
> happen?
I'd like them to be deleted. But I can do that manually
once in a while if it comes to that. To have the spam
separated from instead of *in* mail.misc is a huge
improvement.
> If the mailserver deleted the email, you would be
> quite angry in case it misdetected non-spam as
> spam...
Yeah, but I don't think I'll look into the "spam"
group/directory to doublecheck anyway, so is there a
difference in practice?
>> (setq nnmail-split-methods
>> '(("spam" "^X-Spam-Flag: YES")
>> ("mail.misc" "") ))
>
> I use fancy splitting, but yes, that looks about
> right comparing to the documentation. The examples do
> not start with ^, so you may want to try without it
Isn't that a regexp special char for "start of line"?
> You can test where an existing email would be split
> to by pressing B q when looking at it.
>
> And you can get Gnus to put it where the splitting
> rules say by pressing B r.
OK, I'll test that.
>> I hope I won't get them in a directory called
>> "spam", now!
>
> Why? Wouldn't the point be to separate them out from
> the non-spam email? Where would you like them to go?
> Remember that spam classification isn't perfect.
Come to think of it, I guess I could keep them.
>> I tested sending a mail to myself with "X-Spam-Flag:
>> YES" as a header, but it was delivered to mail.misc,
>> and the header had been removed. Perhaps
>> SpamAssassin thought that wasn't spam, and I got
>> overruled.
>
> Yeah, otherwise spammers would just set "X-Spam-Flag:
> NO" - so usually mail servers that run SpamAssassin
> will remove any of those headers, before adding what
> the mail server itself thinks.
Ha ha ha, Spam: NO :) Yes, that makes sense.
--
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united: http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
- Re: Spam despite spam header, (continued)
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Adam Sjøgren, 2013/12/23
- Message not available
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Emanuel Berg, 2013/12/24
- Message not available
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Emanuel Berg, 2013/12/11
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Adam Sjøgren, 2013/12/11
- Message not available
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Emanuel Berg, 2013/12/11
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Dmitrii Kashin, 2013/12/12
- Message not available
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Emanuel Berg, 2013/12/12
- Message not available
- Re: Spam despite spam header,
Emanuel Berg <=
- Message not available
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Emanuel Berg, 2013/12/12
- Re: Spam despite spam header, Adam Sjøgren, 2013/12/13