message tagging [was: Bogofilter Digest, Vol 6, Issue 8]
relson at osagesoftware.com
Tue Sep 7 18:35:30 EDT 2004
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:37:22 -0700
> i would just like to second Tom Allison's main point, that BF itself
> should be kept clear of doing things that procmail (and its
> equivalent) ,formail or shell scripts can do.
> The cleaner BF is kept and unifocused it is, the better I think. If it
> was really desired, then making additions to the core functionality
> could be handled like bogolexer and bogotune, as separate entities.
Reasonable points, but ...
bogolexer was initially a quick and dirty way to test the lexer and see
how a message gets parsed. Of course, it's grown a bit since then.
At present "formail -D" doesn't give any info about whether bogofilter
registered a given message. So, it doesn't provide a way to prevent
duplication or erroneous unregistration. The implementation of a
message tag could easily include include how the message was registered,
i.e. ham or spam.
Of course, my register/unregister experiment indicates that message
tagging is of minor value.
More information about the Bogofilter