Robert Menschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The method I use is to differ from the stock rule naming convention.
> Per http://www.exit0.us/index.php/RM_RuleNaming I identify all non-stock
> rules so I hopefully know where they came from, and at least know they
> aren't stock rules.
>
> I agree with you that it'd be good to be able to see what scores were
> applied in emails that did not get flagged as spam.
It turns out to be pretty easy to do this with version 2.63. I just
hadn't noticed when this stuff appeared in the documentation of
Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
A private poster has shown me how to use `tags' that will produce the
exact result I was after:
In local.cf:
add_header all Report _REPORT_
Will produce a header like this:
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.2 HTML_FONT_FACE_ODD BODY: HTML font face is not a commonly used
face
* 0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE BODY: HTML font color is blue
* 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 0.1 HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD BODY: HTML font face is not a word
* 0.3 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font
* 0.7 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
* 0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED BODY: HTML font color is red
* 1.8 DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours after Received: date
* 0.9 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
* 0.9 MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER Message-Id was added by a relay
Or for a little less info (just rule and score)
add_header all HP _TESTSSCORES(,)_
Will produce this header:
X-Spam-HP: DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24=1.754,HTML_50_60=0.699,
HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE=0.1,HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED=0.1,HTML_FONT_BIG=0.271,
HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.063,HTML_FONT_FACE_ODD=0.185,HTML_MESSAGE=0.16,
MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART=0.942,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.915
So with your tecnique of putting keys in your custom rules either of
above would make it immediately apparent what happened.
