TO: vs CC:

[Dan Singletary]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to use just two classifications: FROM 
and TO.  If the letter is going to be delivered to an address (ie, in TO 
or CC) then it gets marked with TO:, and if it's in the FROM (perhaps 
even Reply-to:?) then it gets marked as FROM.

-Dan

David Relson wrote:
> I just noticed an interesting anomaly....
> 
> My wife is a Girl Scout troop leader.  This morning she received a
> message about a meeting.  The message had 31 people in its "To:" field
> of a message.  Bogofilter tagged the messages as ham and auto-updated
> the wordlist, just like it should have.
> 
> Due to weather the meeting has been cancelled and she got to use "Reply
> All" to send out the message.  Bogofilter tagged the cancellation notice
> as "unsure".  As I thought this was peculiar, I used "-vvv" to see
> tokens and scores.  Here are a few lines:
> 
> "head:Leonor"                        1  0.000000  0.000017  0.992115 +
> "head:Betsy"                         2  0.000000  0.000034  0.996023 +
> "head:Giles"                         2  0.000000  0.000034  0.996023 +
> "head:Wendy"                         4  0.000000  0.000068  0.998003 +
> "head:Cook"                          5  0.000000  0.000085  0.998401 +
> "head:Sonja"                         5  0.000000  0.000085  0.998401 +
> "head:jennifer"                      6  0.000000  0.000102  0.998666 +
> 
> What's peculiar about these tokens is that they're all purely spam --
> all have ham counts of zero.  This shouldn't be the case since all these
> names were in the To: section of a previous "ham" message and should all
> have been entered into the wordlist by auto-update, i.e. "-u".
> 
> Thinking further, I realized that the first time around, the names were
> processed as "to:Leonor", "to:Betsy", etc.  In the second message, they
> were in a CC: section which was processed like a regular header line and
> didn't receive the special tagging of a TO: line, i.e. they were
> processed as "head:Leonor", "head:Betsy", etc.
> 
> It seems that bogofilter should tag CC: lines the same way it
> processes TO: lines.
> 
> ### Here's a test of the two messages using 0.16.1 ###
> 
> [relson at osage src]$ bogofilter -C -v -B msg.pc.0114*
> msg.pc.0114.1114 X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000,
> version=0.16.1
> msg.pc.0114.1312 X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000,
> version=0.16.1
> 
> ### Here's a test of the two messages using 0.16.1.cvs, which tags CC:
> lines like TO: lines ###
> 
> [relson at osage src]$ bogofilter -C -v -B msg.pc.0114*
> msg.pc.0114.1114 X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000,
> version=0.16.1.cvs
> msg.pc.0114.1312 X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000,
> version=0.16.1.cvs
> 
> Looks good to me!
> 
> Anybody object to changing bogofilter to tag CC: like TO: ???
> 
> David
>