Comments inline:
Dirk Nienhaus said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Since some of the emails from this list had already been processed by
>> somebody else's spamassassin (the sender's perhaps?) and had the
>> X-Spam-Status header, my procmail rule bypassed the spamassassin filter.
>
> Hi, at first
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since some of the emails from this list had already been processed by
somebody else's spamassassin (the sender's perhaps?) and had the
X-Spam-Status header, my procmail rule bypassed the spamassassin filter.
Hi, at first thank you for the fast answer!
if i understand you r
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 19:08, Dirk Nienhaus wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Since some of the emails from this list had already been processed by
> > somebody else's spamassassin (the sender's perhaps?) and had the
> > X-Spam-Status header, my procmail rule bypassed the spamassassin filter.
Dirk,
I noticed that same effect while reading this list (sa-talk). Turns out
it was my flawed attempt at processed emails only once by spamassassin.
My faulty logic in procmail skipped piping through spamassassin if the
header X-Spam-Status already existed.
Since some of the emails from this l
Hello,
i have a question. Normaly sa works find and the mail header of a spam
mail is like this:
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.7 required=5.0
tests=BANG_MORE,BARGAIN_URL,CLICK_BELOW,FORGED_MUA_OIMO,
HTML_50_60,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06,
HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_WEB_BUGS
versio
