> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote: > > On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > >> > >> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme: > >>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me > >>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used > >>> because > >>> of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list > >> > >> it is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters > >> if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to drop > > > > Those are very stupid filters then.
> Huh? > > How else would you suggest that a spam filter mark messages that are > scored high enough to be "spammy" yet not high enough to be > discarded/rejected, in a manner that will clearly convey that status to > the end user? I completely agree with Lukreme that you should never modify the subject to indicate spam since users just reply back to the sender causing the sender to think the reply is spam. I filter for almost 100,000 mailboxes and I got tired of explaining over and over when we tagged the subject. Now I just set the "X-Spam-Status: Yes" and hopefully the mail client will work with that and move it to the Junk folder. (Can't count on Outlook to do anything logical though. The Junk Mail Filter in Outlook seems to have a mind of it's own and it's not consistent.)
