[Background, problems]
SpamHalter (in Pegasus 4.41) doesn't
learn from Content Control's decisions, as shown in headers and the
"Explain classification" dialog box. SH training is not triggered when CC moves a message to the Junk folder, in contrast to when a message is "Quick Moved", drag/dropped or moved there by a general filtering rule.
[Suggestion]
Invoke SpamHalter training on all messages moved or copied to the Junk folder, regardless of how that move or copy is achieved. Please note that this suggestion aims for an easy-to-understand, consistent method with minimum maintenance and interaction required from the user. A good implementation means significantly less manual work then the work-around described here.
[Rationale]
- SpamHalter does not make Content Control superfluous. CC is a valuable spam-fighting tool because it can catch tricks that fool word-based Bayesian filters, e.g yyyViagraxxx.
- SpamHalter training, both initial and ongoing, becomes more efficient and more automatic when it takes advantage of Content Control decisions. This is telling from actual experience.
- Less manual work compared to the work-around described in the first post to this thread in Community tech support.
- It will be easier to understand than the work-around, important when introducing Pegasus to Outlook users.
- Consistent behaviour will be easier to understand than the distinction between different kinds of 'message move'.
<p>[Background, problems]
SpamHalter (in Pegasus 4.41) doesn't
learn from Content Control's decisions, as shown in headers and the
"Explain classification" dialog box. SH training is not triggered when CC moves a message to the Junk folder, in contrast to when a message is "Quick Moved", drag/dropped or moved there by a general filtering rule.</p><p>[Suggestion]
Invoke SpamHalter training on all messages moved or copied to the Junk folder, regardless of how that move or copy is achieved. Please note that this suggestion aims for an easy-to-understand, consistent method with minimum maintenance and interaction required from the user. A good implementation means significantly less manual work then <a href="/forums/thread/6667.aspx" mce_href="/forums/thread/6667.aspx">the work-around described here</a>.
</p><p>[Rationale]
</p><ul><li>SpamHalter does not make Content Control superfluous. CC is a valuable spam-fighting tool because it can catch tricks that fool word-based Bayesian filters, e.g yyyViagraxxx.</li><li>SpamHalter training, both initial and ongoing, becomes more efficient and more automatic when it takes advantage of Content Control decisions. This is telling from actual experience.
</li><li>Less manual work compared to the work-around described in the first post to <a href="/forums/thread/6667.aspx" mce_href="/forums/thread/6667.aspx">this thread in Community tech support</a>.
</li><li>It will be easier to understand than the work-around, important when introducing Pegasus to Outlook users.</li><li>Consistent behaviour will be easier to understand than the distinction between different kinds of 'message move'.
</li></ul>