Re: Position of X-Spam headers

On 05.07.23 04:38, Robert Senger wrote: > Thanks for the hint that the milter is responsible for that. Found > a > little patch for spamass-milter that fixed this. Am Mittwoch, dem 05.07.2023 um 10:20 +0200 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: note that the headers that appear first in the message

Re: Position of X-Spam headers

Am Mittwoch, dem 05.07.2023 um 14:50 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > *nothing* should touch existing headers as you also have multiple > Reveived-headers Good point. So, it seems that spamass-milter is doing things a bit, well, unconventional... I thought this is the case to not confuse later

Re: Position of X-Spam headers

Am Mittwoch, dem 05.07.2023 um 10:20 +0200 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: > On 05.07.23 04:38, Robert Senger wrote: > > Thanks for the hint that the milter is responsible for that. Found > > a > > little patch for spamass-milter that fixed this. > > note that the headers that appear first in the

Re: Position of X-Spam headers

On 05.07.23 04:38, Robert Senger wrote: Thanks for the hint that the milter is responsible for that. Found a little patch for spamass-milter that fixed this. note that the headers that appear first in the message are considered trusted, while those below do not. That's why most of milters put