[Top] [All Lists]

Re: spamtest/virustest "NIL" behaviour

2003-04-30 10:49:27

Hi Ned,

--On Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:27 AM -0700 
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

|> I'd also suggest that we use a different value to "NIL", perhaps "5 NIL"
|> so that the 5 is mid range 50/50 spam/virus and the "NIL" as the string
|> to say that scanning failed to protect users from making the fairly
|> subtle mistake of treating scan failures as either "definately not spam"
|> or "definately spam".
| I dislike assigning a default value in the middle of the range when no
| check has been done. I guess I could live with making 0 a special "no
| check has been done" value.

It may be OK to do that for spamtest, but I don't think its valid for
virustest. What we could do is:

spamtest value:

0 - unchecked
1 - definitely clear of spam
10 - definitely contains spam

virustest value:

0 - definitely clear of viruses
1 - possibly contains a virus/unchecked
2 - definitely contains a virus

That would eliminate NIL entirely.

I like it -- the current situation where NIL sorts at the end is very awkward.
What do other people think?