http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4494
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-29 09:31 ------- Justin Mason 2005-08-04 17:25 wrote: > gh, this is confusing -- I'm not sure Bayes should be seeing > any diff between message tokens, whether -L is on or not. > > David, could you post a demo of what you saw? I'm sorry for the late rpely. I don't have the time to post a demo, and it might be a moot point right now. But here is more thinking, if you want to track this down: The logic for determining if a header is a trusted header or an untrusted header is entirely different depending on if remote network tests are allowed. I think that if you look in the tokenize headers function (I forget the name) you can see this. Each token, depending on if it came from a trusted or an un- trusted header, gets a different prefix to show the context, so this really *can* create different tokens from the same e-mail depending on if network tests are enabled or not. (If the tokensize headers function was guaranteed make the same decisions about trusted/untrusted headers regardless of having network tests, then it could be much simplified.) In addition, you might want to add a note in the documentation telling people to consider re-learning from their corpus after changing the trusted_networks and/or internal_networks configuration. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
