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

[Matthias Andree]

On Fri, 04 Oct 2002, Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:39:59PM -0400, David Relson wrote:
> > 
> > 	:0fw
> > 	| bogofilter -p -u
> > 
> > 	:0:
> > 	^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> > 	$HOME/spam
> 
> It seems to me that the question of the wisdom of using
> "X-Spam-Status" has not been adequately explored on this list.
> 
> 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.

I'm piping things through reformail (go for formail if you have decrepit
procmail) to rename the header right after the bogofilter -p...

> The world already has expectations of the meaning of "X-Spam-Status".
> Confounding those expectations is irresponsible.  I wouldn't argue
> against it, except that I can't think of any case for it except inertia.

...and you can enhance your * ^X-Spam-Status line (it really should have
that asterisk "*") to include tests=bogofilter.

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