On 10/20/14, 9:46 AM, jdebert wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:39:57 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
On 17.10.14 10:08, jdebert wrote:
Will URIBL_BLOCKED cause [SPAM] to be inserted into Subject?
no, it will more likely cause [SPAM] _not_ to be inserted, because it
wouldn't be detected.
Good. Had me worried a bit there. (^_^)
Also, doesn't sa insert something else a bit different? Isn't it
likely that someone else inserted that before the OP's server ever
saw it?
If SA inserts anything to Subject: and what it is, depends only on SA
configuration. It's the "rewrite_header" configuration directive.
Of course. I was thinking at the time that some other spam filter/tagger
that used that by default might have done this. After posting, realised
that the config would have to be changed for that. Forgot to ask if it
was the case.
I recall some cases in the past where spam filtering setups, such as
those for "antispam" appliances did such things by default without
adding any headers. I suspected this might be the case here. Too many
possibilities, too little data.
What I'll do then is change the inserted message to something else.
Just to verify this. I did manage to get rid of the warning from the
dnsdbl list. But I can pull this and try again too.
