On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] stipulated:
> Don't bother to try to report spam with that header placement if you
> expect outfits that use DCC to respond. Placing the headers at the
> bottom that way will screw up the DCC hash they can use to identify
> the message details as "truth".
AIUI
From: "Graham Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Don't bother to try to report spam with that header placement if you
expect outfits that use DCC to respond. Placing the headers at the
bottom that way will screw up the DCC hash they can use to identify
the message d
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't bother to try to report spam with that header placement if you
> expect outfits that use DCC to respond. Placing the headers at the
> bottom that way will screw up the DCC hash they can use to identify
> the message details as "truth".
But does spamassas
From: "SickBoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I believe the answer is to change this line in PerMsgStatus.pm:
$new_hdrs_pre .= "X-Spam-$header: $line\n";
to
$new_hdrs_post .= "X-Spam-$header: $line\n";
I haven't tested it or anything, just reading the code.
Well Theo, thank God there are peop
> I believe the answer is to change this line in PerMsgStatus.pm:
>
> $new_hdrs_pre .= "X-Spam-$header: $line\n";
>
> to
>
> $new_hdrs_post .= "X-Spam-$header: $line\n";
>
> I haven't tested it or anything, just reading the code.
Well Theo, thank God there are people like you around. ;)
T
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:08:54PM +0100, SickBoy wrote:
> Well, I've searched thru archives before posting (vide
> http://www.nabble.com/SA-Headers-Moved-t365404.html#a1011617 as a decent
> example), and still my question HOW to do it remains unanswered.
What you're looking for is a patch, which
> I don't want to be one of those jerks who tells you to read the list
> archives for an answer, but I know this subject has been raised several
> times since the release of 3.1.0.
Well, I've searched thru archives before posting (vide
http://www.nabble.com/SA-Headers-Moved-t365404.html#a1011617
When mail is processed by SA ( spamc/spamd from procmail in this example),
it adds all the X-Spam headers at the beginning of the mail (prepend).
I don't want to be one of those jerks who tells you to read the list
archives for an answer, but I know this subject has been raised several
times s
Hi there.
After installing the brand new SA 3.1.0 I've spotted one small thing.
When mail is processed by SA ( spamc/spamd from procmail in this example),
it adds all the X-Spam headers at the beginning of the mail (prepend).
I've submitted a bug [
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.
