[Spambayes] RE: Suggestion/Help offer

[Ryan Malayter]

From: Coe, Bob
<snip>
> ...the salient point is that the rule(s) necessary 
> to accomplish the stated objective (filter on sender 
> address and move the identified messages to a given 
> folder) will run on the server if both the origin 
> folder and the destination folder are on the server. 
> Virtually all of the repeated "whitelist" requests 
> the developers have been getting can be covered by 
> that case.

I wasn't really aware white listing was the original subject of this
thread. I missed that somehow, because the thread with the subject
"Suggestion/Help offer" got disconnected from this by someone's
non-standard mail reader putting an extra RE: in the subject line.

Anyway, I agree that Outlook rules offer a viable functional replacement
for a SpamBayes whitelist, although it's not necessarily fun or
convenient to wade three dialog boxes deep into the Rules Wizard to add
an address to your whitelist.

I also think that a white list should be a low priority addition to
SpamBayes, since there's other "meatier" stuff that needs to be done,
and Outlook Rules can be used as a workaround.

> I'll concede the effectiveness of the delayed execution 
> of the Spambayes rules, but it's still a hack. Keeping 
> the two sets of rules out of each other's way would seem 
> to be the safer course of action when it's possible to 
> do so.

I agree with this as well, but I would guess a majority of Outlook users
do not connect to an Exchange server, or if they do, use local delivery
(even though PST=evil). So making Outlook rules work well with SpamBayes
is a needed exercise. We just can't punt and say "buy Exchange server"
to everyone...

Regards,
	-Ryan-