On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 12:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:32:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by fbsd.cykotix.com by uid 82 > > with > > > qmail-scanner-1.20rc3 > > > (clamuko: 0.60. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:0:SA:1(12.7/8.0):. > > > Processed in 4.526443 secs); 28 Sep 2003 23:43:37 -0000 > > > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=12.7 required=8.0 > > > > ah, you're running qmail-scanner. all bets are off since it does its own > > thing. > > > > -- > > Randomly Generated Tagline: > > "By golly, I'm beginning to think Linux really *is* the best thing since > > sliced bread." > > (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power) > > > > > no, that shouldn't matter. There is nothing special with how it calls spamd.
Yes there is, qmail-scanner uses it's own X-Spam-Status header, it's not the same as the one that spamc can put into the headers. To be exact, qmail-scanner use the "light-weight" mode of calling spamd where spamd only reports the score, no details and no modified message output. -- Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
