On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Olivier M. wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote: > > As others have mentioned: It's hard to reliably be sure that a message > > has((n't)?) been scanned before. My system might scan the message before > > forwarding on to your system, for instance. > > > > What I'd recommend is -NOT- using the Subject-line *****SPAM**** tagging, > > so that at least it isn't horribly modifying message content like that. > > sure :) > but ignoring mails containing a > "X-Spam-Flag: YES" > couldn't hurt, don't you think? But that was just an idea :)
You using procmail for delivery? Just include that logic there - don't pass it through spamassassin again if that header exists. -- Charlie Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frontier Internet, Inc. http://www.frontier.net/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
