[Users] Can the use of SpamAssassin result in filtering rules being bypassed?

[Pierre Fortin]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 20:32:21 +0100 Dave Howorth wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 08:56:20 -0400
>Pierre Fortin <pf at pfortin.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:54:48 -0000 Paul wrote:
>>   
>> >Hello Pierre,
>> >
>> >I am not sure that I've followed your description correctly but I
>> >can say that the SpamAssassin plugin always runs before any
>> >filtering rules.    
>> 
>> Thanks! Sorry if my message wasn't clear enough; but I now better
>> understand how SpamAssassin, by running first can obfuscate many other
>> filter results.  It's easy to follow what we expect from our filters;
>> but SA can short-circuit those filters...  In my case, I was wanting
>> to simply delete certain messages; but SA moved them to my SPAM
>> folder before my filter ever saw them. My desire to not have to deal
>> with these messages at all was thwarted by SA's action, after which I
>> still had to deal with them.  
>
>I'm curious. Why do you still have to deal with them if they've been
>moved to the spam folder? You were thinking of deleting them, so what's
>the problem with them being in the spam folder and just ignoring them
>instead? That's kind of exactly what the spam folder is for isn't it? A
>dumping ground for unwanted mail. Just delete the oldest stuff every
>year or so.

Hi Dave,

Some spam is both obnoxious and very frequent, so I was wanting to
delete it outright and not waste my time with tons of cruft in the spam
folder which sometimes collects false positives.  I keep my spam folder
virtually empty to avoid missing those false positives.

Cheers,
Pierre