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

[Eric Seppanen]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:09:13PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> 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.

I agree completely.  I hope every feature request has to pass a gauntlet 
of skepticism before going in.

> If we use sensible header names, no one will ever have any reason to
> change them.

Where I work we change the header to indicate what machine filtered a 
piece of mail.  I could also see users wanting to install bogofilter in a 
way that emulates the behavior of some other filtering system, so in this 
case I do see value in allowing the change.

Sensible defaults are still important, though.

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