Re: Problems with spam filtering and bogofilter.

[Raja R Harinath <harinath@cs.umn.edu>]

Hi,

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, harinath@cs.umn.edu wrote:
>>   * ham marked and X-Bogosity: No        => do nothing
>>   * ham marked and X-Bogosity: Yes       => | bogofilter -N
>>   * ham marked and no X-Bogosity header  => | bogofilter -n
>> 
>>   * spam marked and X-Bogosity: No       => | bogofilter -S
>>   * spam marked and X-Bogosity: Yes      => do nothing
>>   * spam marked and no X-Bogosity header => | bogofilter -s
>
> Hmm, I think I like the exit codes of bogofilter (1 for ham, 0 for
> spam).  I'd rather use that than the procmail filtering, since IMAP
> users often don't have procmail available.  

That's fine.  But, it would be nice to integrate with procmail for
people who can and do use procmail.

> We can add a new check (spam-check-bogofilter-headers) if anyone is
> interested in filtering on the Bogofilter X-Bogosity header and it
> gets inserted elsewhere in the mail delivery chain, 

That can be achieved with the regular gnus splitting machinery.  No
need for 'spam.el' to worry in this case, IMHO.

> but spam-check-bogofilter should not rely on that.  So speak up if
> you want spam-check-bogofilter-headers added.
>
> So the invocations will be:
>
> ham-marked: bogofilter -n
> spam-marked: bogofilter -s

This should be automatically covered in the "no X-Bogosity header"
case above.  You really want to check if 'bogofilter' already has
incorporated the counts for this message -- and the X-Bogosity header
is a good indicator.

Also I meant the above rules to be used in the post-processing routine
(spam-bogofilter-register-routine), not in the filtering part.  My
suggestion above will work if the mail was processed by any of:

  * procmail script with 'bogofilter -u -e -p'
  * spam-split with spam-check-bogofilter
  * any other splitting tool which may not even invoke bogofilter

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu