X-Spam-Status (was Re: New Option - '-u' for update)

[Ben Rosengart]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:11:14PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 03:04:38PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> > The SpamAssassin team should have picked a less generic name for
> > their header.  Let's not repeat their mistake.  A well-behaved
> > program working in a shared namespace (in this case, email headers)
> > should claim a previously-unused piece of the namespace for itself
> > and stay within that piece.  So bogofilter should use "X-Bogo" or
> > something similar, and any headers it adds should start with that.
> 
> Wouldn't be too hard to have a config-file command to allow a user to 
> change the string.  This is not an argument for or against X-Spam-Status; 
> just a solution in case people disagree what the header should be.

Usability is as much about what can't be configured as what can be.
If we use sensible header names, no one will ever have any reason to
change them.

I am thinking not only of this but of the "-n" vs. "-h" debate.
People will not be able to understand each other's usage examples
if no consistency is enforced.

-- 
Ben Rosengart     (212) 741-4400 x215

Microsoft has argued that open source is bad for business, but you
have to ask, "Whose business?  Theirs, or yours?"    --Tim O'Reilly

For summay digest subscription: bogofilter-digest-subscribe at aotto.com