[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Problem with upgrade from to 0.3.1

From: Eli Barzilay
Subject: Re: Problem with upgrade from to 0.3.1
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:39:06 -0400

On Jul  3, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Jul 03), Eli Barzilay said:
> > [...]
> That block of code would only fire if flag_bucket is set, though,


> which means you have a -b or -B option on your commandline, which
> implies that you actually wanted the described behaviour :) Note
> that the inside block sends the message to the argument of the -b/-B
> option, not the original recipient, so I don't think it could be
> causing what you're seeing.

OK, there's definitely some mis-communication, and possibly some
documentation problem...  (I did read through the man page, through
other docs that came with the FC5 rpm, and through some of the web

The description of `-b' (and therefore `-B' too) is:

       -b spamaddress
              Redirects tagged spam to the specified email address.  [...]

So every email that is spam goes to the specified email.  That's
something I want: I want to hold spam in a local file to review from
time to time.  However, this file can get filled pretty quickly during
Spam storms, and I never bother with anything above 8 or so.  Then I
see this:

       -r nn  Reject  scanned  email  if it greater than or equal to nn.

Sounds perfect.  *My* understanding was that with a standard 5.0 SA
threshold and `-r 10', anything below 5.0 gets delivered, things
between 5 and 10 are caught by the above -b spamaddress, and anything
beyond that is rejected with *no trace*.  Now, that can be defective
understanding on my part, but the following paragraph:

              For example, if  you  usually  use  procmail  to  redirect
              tagged  email into a separate folder just in case of false
              positives, you can use -r 15 and reject flagrant spam out-
              right while still receiving low-scoring messages.

seems to say just that.  What I obviously missed is the "use procmail"
part.  And finally I see that the original message in this thread was
about using `-u', not `-b'.

Obviously, I understood wrongly...

If I *now* understand correctly, the when `-r' is used, then there is
no difference between `-b' and `-B' (flag_bucket_only is not checked).
Also, `-b'/`-B' have nearly no effect when `-r' is used -- it looks
like the only difference is in how the message gets delivered to the
spambucket, which seems pointless.

So I suggest one of the following:

(1) Assuming that my last conclusion is correct, then there is no need
    to have the code that I removed, so
    1a. remove that code,
    1b. explain it in the `-r' description.


(2) If there is some difference (between `-b xxx -r nn' and `-b xxx')
    that I'm missing, then
    2a. clarify the `-r' description to say what the difference is
    2b. add another flag for not passing messages to the spambucket --
        an obvious choice would be `-R' which will be "same as `-R'
        except ...blah-blah-blah...".

If this makes sense I will be happy to write and send patches (except
for #2a which is a difference I don't see now....).

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                         Maze is Life!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]