How do I get the message filters to recognise this text?
My ISP adds "X-Optus-CM-Spam: spam" and "X-Optus-CM-Score: 100" to spam emails just after the date and before the body of the message. It is usually pretty accurate in identifying spam but I can't get Thunderbird's message filters to use this message as apparently it is not part of any of the categories such as "body" or "from" that the filters recognise.
Please don't just tell me to use the existing junk filters in Thunderbird. I have been using Thunderbird since Netscape folded and marking junk as junk but it doesn't learn. In fact my existing "from" filters are set to mark messages as junk and move to junk folder. Apparently the junk needs you to mark messages as non-junk but I have rarely been able to do that as you can't mark a message as non-junk until the system erroneously marks it as junk.
선택된 해결법
In the message filter you have the list of things to match and at the bottom is customize. Click it. Add the header X-Optus-CM-Spam
Then once you add it use it to check the value as "spam" likewise you can do that with X-Optus-CM-Score or any other message header Entering the text before the : in the header name.
To be honest if you have 20 years of training data in your spam filter and it is still not working, I think it is probably time to reset it so it can start learning again. Just remember, the filter will never learn about image spam and the from address is not relevant.
문맥에 따라 이 답변을 읽어주세요 👍 1모든 댓글 (2)
선택된 해결법
In the message filter you have the list of things to match and at the bottom is customize. Click it. Add the header X-Optus-CM-Spam
Then once you add it use it to check the value as "spam" likewise you can do that with X-Optus-CM-Score or any other message header Entering the text before the : in the header name.
To be honest if you have 20 years of training data in your spam filter and it is still not working, I think it is probably time to reset it so it can start learning again. Just remember, the filter will never learn about image spam and the from address is not relevant.
Thanks, Matt. That was exactly what I wanted to know.