First of all, thanks for your help! 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 results, thus leaving it up to the downstream software to choose which "X-Spam" headers to use for furter processing. This is okay for me. In its original code, spamass-milter adds its own headers to the bottom of the header list, or updates existing "X-Spam" headers in place if their names match those spamass-milter uses. What do you think? Robert Am Mittwoch, dem 05.07.2023 um 01:38 +0200 schrieb Robert Senger: > Hi all, > > is there a reason why spamassassin adds its "X-Spam ..." headers to > the > bottom of the header block, not to the top like every other mail > filtering software (e.g. opendkim, opendmarc, clamav ... ) does? Can > this behavious be changed? > > Regards, > > Robert > -- Robert Senger
