>
> I don't see a problem in this particular case.
>
> Nobody but SA or compatible spam filter adds X-Spam: headers.
> These headers are to be added by your local MTA when delivering mail
> and not
> distributed over the net, although it happens.
> They also should not be used for DKIM
Marc skrev den 2023-07-10 09:07:
https://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg110390.html
lost in transaction with points of why is spamc needed when spamd
provide a port 783 native socket ports just like when clamd provide 3310
on tcp, my point is valid
as with clamav i
> I've patched spamass milter to let any previously added "X-Spam"
> headers untouched
Am Sonntag, dem 09.07.2023 um 13:55 -0700 schrieb Loren Wilton:
Its generally considered bad practice to pass thru X-Spam headers from an
unkonwn source. Like most anything else in an email header, a
>
> Since I need to patch spamass-milter anyway to resolve a different
> issue (calling "sendmail -bv " does not work on postfix
> systems), it should be easy to add such an option to spamass-milter.
>
Hi Robert, are going to work on this milter? :) :) Currently I have the milter
seperate from
Am Sonntag, dem 09.07.2023 um 13:55 -0700 schrieb Loren Wilton:
> > I've patched spamass milter to let any previously added "X-Spam"
> > headers untouched
>
> Its generally considered bad practice to pass thru X-Spam headers
> from an
> unkonwn source.
> Like most anything else in an email
Am Sonntag, dem 09.07.2023 um 19:23 +0200 schrieb David Bürgin:
> Hello Robert,
>
> > Now, I am a bit uncertain about what would be the best practice for
> > a
> > milter to place its headers.
> >
> > I've patched spamass milter to let any previously added "X-Spam"
> > headers untouched, and
I've patched spamass milter to let any previously added "X-Spam"
headers untouched
Its generally considered bad practice to pass thru X-Spam headers from an
unkonwn source.
Like most anything else in an email header, a spammer could inject his own
headers, probably populated with items
Hello Robert,
> Now, I am a bit uncertain about what would be the best practice for a
> milter to place its headers.
>
> I've patched spamass milter to let any previously added "X-Spam"
> headers untouched, and just add its own headers on top of the header
> list as required by spamassassin's
