Hi Rich,
Changing $sa_tag_level_deflt to undef would mean that the headers would
be even added to whitelisted items (as they can sometimes not, if you
just set it to a really low number). This may be why.
On 03/29/2017 06:31 AM, Rich Wales wrote:
/# tagging levels $sa_tag_level_deflt = und
After a few more hours of hacking away at this, I finally solved it!
I was actually on the right track when I mentioned the $subject_tag
parsing code on line 16373 in my previous email. That is in fact the
code that gets executed for $sa_spam_subject_tag as well. The reason it
wasn't working
And to follow-up on my previous follow-up (sorry, it's late here and I'm
tired) :-) ...
The "1+" I mentioned was actually "0+" originally... I had changed it to
1+ while debugging this. Oops. So my final changed is actually a bit
simpler:
{ $1 eq 'SCORE' ? (sprintf("%07.3f",$spam_le
> /Changing $sa_tag_level_deflt to undef would mean that the headers
> would be even added to whitelisted items (as they can sometimes not,
> if you just set it to a really low number). This may be why./
I changed *$sa_tag_level_deflt* from -1 to *undef*, then restarted
the amavis service.
N
>From examining the amavisd-new code, it appears the relevant portion is
at line 11554:
/11554/ } elsif (!$reporting && /^(?:X-Spam|X-CRM114)-.+:/si) {
/11555/ # skip header fields inserted by us
/11556/ } else {
This is amavisd-new-2.10.1 (20141025).
So it doesn't look like
On 30 March 2017 at 05:09, Rich Wales wrote:
> From examining the amavisd-new code, it appears the relevant portion is at
> line 11554:
>
> *11554* } elsif (!$reporting && /^(?:X-Spam|X-CRM114)-.+:/si) {
> *11555* # skip header fields inserted by us
> *11556* } else {
>
> This
