On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:17:54 +0200 (CEST) Robert Vazan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RV> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:30:08 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin RV> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: RV> RV> > I've seen that you've checked in the whitelist implementation, could you RV> > please explain in a few words how it works? RV> RV> It collects all address fields (senders, recipients, lists) into one string RV> and searches this string for every address in whitelist (this reminds me RV> that it doesn't support adb groups...). BTW, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to make the whitelist just an ADB group or book by itself... The advantage clearly is that you don't need a special config option for it and that users can add addresses to it without problem (especially once I fix the bugs 441 and 115...). The only disadvantage I see is that it might be slow but some creative caching should help here. Where is the whitelist currently stored? Just as a string in config? Maybe it's not too late to make it a separate ADB yet (and with your 1-line provider you could then even use external tools to generate/update it...)? RV> > 1. it is integrated with spam tests, i.e. I don't want to apply them at all RV> > to the messages from people in my whitelist RV> RV> I want to add multiple extensions to spam options dialog and arranging them RV> logically would be most efficient when I am (mostly) finished. Ok. RV> I want it to have multiple pages (heuristics, whitelist, autoresponder, RV> ..., maybe bayesian?) If we can have spam tests in modules (and I'd really like to...), why not. RV> and first page with checkbox for every other page and for every RV> external program (SpamAssassin). Individual options should be combined RV> in such a way that you don't need to setup more than one spam filter RV> rule. Yes, this is exactly what I'd like to. RV> That said, you currently have to create another rule in front of existing RV> spam rule, that has only whitelist option checked. The rule should be RV> negated to match whitelisted addresses instead of non-whitelisted ones. Ok, I understand. But, indeed, the above would be preferrable (ideally). I see there is a new filter test and a new option in the dialog, very good. I'm going to play with it right now. RV> > 2. if I can automatically add all people I write to (including replying) to RV> > the whitelist? RV> RV> This is not done yet, but it's in my plans. Ok, thanks again! VZ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Mahogany-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
