Hello Gordon, thank you for your advise. On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:04:43AM -0400, Gordon Dickens wrote:
Hi Udo,
Oops! I goofed when I wrote the following:
If you do not want to tag the mail in your spam folders then edit etc/exim.conf and, in the "headers_add" statements, remove all occurances of "Subject: [SPAMTAGTEXT] $h_Subject:\n". There are three (3) instances to be removed.
That will not work. Sorry! You should only remove "[SPAMTAGTEXT]" in the headers_add statements in exim.conf. The above paragraph in my prior email should read as follows instead:
If you do not want to tag the mail in your spam folders then edit etc/exim.conf and, in the "headers_add" statements, remove all occurances of "[SPAMTAGTEXT]". There are three (3) instances to be removed. If I understand correctly, this would disable tagging totally. What I want in fact is that the tag is added to the Subject if the mail is stored in the Inbox, but that it is not added if it is stored in the SpamBox (this already makes the user know that it is spam, so IMHO no tagging is necessary in this case).
I would like to propose two little change to exim4u: If one would store the value "[SPAM]" (or "[BULK]" or whatever) in the variable SpamTagText, then one could easily disable tagging by just setting this variable to the empty string. Is not it? I am not an expert on exim, but I guess this should be possible. It would just mean to change the lines you mentioned above to "Subject: SPAMTAGTEXT $h_Subject:\n" instead of "Subject: [SPAMTAGTEXT] $h_Subject:\n" and to make the corresponding change in /etc/exim/exim4u_global_spam_virus, right? I think this would easily allow people to disable tagging. To achieve the goal I mentioned above (no tagging for mails stored in SpamBox, but tagging for those stored in the inbox) one may introduce a second variable similar to SpamTagText. Maybe one could use the following two instead: SpamTagTextInbox and SpamTagTextSpambox and use them in the routers virtual_domains and virtual_spam_boxes respectively. If I understand correctly, something like this should do the job, right? I would be interested in your opinion on this. Best regards, Udo