This problem seems to also create another side effect. It triggers the
SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE rule incorrectly.
If it is putting one at the end and the others at the front I think it
would
be a problem and worht opening a ticket. If the way it is will work with
DomainKeys then it is probably mo
Loren Wilton wrote:
If it is putting one at the end and the others at the front I think it would
be a problem and worht opening a ticket. If the way it is will work with
DomainKeys then it is probably more an annoyance than a problem.
It always does exactly that and it is annoying as you say.
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: X-Spam-Prev-Subject in header's Location - 3.1
> Loren Wilton wrote:
> >>Since everything moved up in SA 3.1 (it will take time to get
> >>used to this one) shouldn't also X-Sp
Loren Wilton wrote:
Since everything moved up in SA 3.1 (it will take time to get
used to this one) shouldn't also X-Spam-Prev-Subject move up
there with the rest of X-Spam-...? IMHO, I find it more
Sounds like a bug to me if they aren't all in the same place.
Nope, they are not. In fact, I
> Since everything moved up in SA 3.1 (it will take time to get
> used to this one) shouldn't also X-Spam-Prev-Subject move up
> there with the rest of X-Spam-...? IMHO, I find it more
Sounds like a bug to me if they aren't all in the same place.
> practical to have everything in one place. BTW,
