On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 04:30, Craig Ringer wrote: > Romeo Benzoni wrote: > > 1. is my approach wide of the mark or are there better, smarter > > solutions to achieve this? (I've read about people doing this using a > > deliver wrapper which calls spamassassin and then deliver. but I don't > > like this kind of "fork and exec orgies") > > I'm in your situation - some of my users _need_ spam filtering, others > absolutely don't want it. I've found the best solution to be simply > tagging messages using SpamAssassin (X-Spam-Flag: true|false) then > letting filtering be done in sieve using a simple header check. It's > even possible for users to pick different thresholds - one of my users > likes 8 instead of the default 5, so they just use sieve to check if > X-Spam-Score contains 8 or more asterisks. You can also use Junk > mailboxes or instant spam deletion configured on a per-user basis this way. > > It wouldn't be hard to whip up a CGI script to do the sieve > configuration for them but my site is not large I'm currently handling > it manually. > > It's also possible for users to configure their clients to do > client-side filtering, but server-side with sieve is much nicer.
thats exactly what im doing right now. user can specify a threshold in their sieve filter (or in a Outlook Rule, or ...) and decide what to do with a mail considered as spam (by a nonindividual serverside rule set!). my point is, that I like to have the possibilty for users to take influence on the decision what is considerd spam. ex. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: like to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the whitelist (never treaten as spam) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: like to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the blacklist now the following email arrive: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ... .... .... got it ? regards Romeo Benzoni
