On 8/28/2017 3:18 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Ralph Seichter skrev den 2017-08-28 22:05: >> usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're >> barking >> up the wrong tree here. ;-) > > and Reply-To: is safe to remove in smtp_header_checks
Assuming your users neither use Reply-To: nor find it useful. Some of my users do. > > since its not default dkim signed > > its not safe to remove in header_checks, if remotes sign it in dkim, > this could be tracked as spam attempt ? Reply-To: is a valid header used for valid purposes, occasionally abused by spammers. It's doubtful the presence of this header, signed or not, is much of a spam indicator. Maybe if the reply-to address is a also a freemail provider. -- Noel Jones
