There was no subject on the original; so the header couldn't be "rewritten." Dallas posted a patch on Bugzilla: 3605.
-----Original Message----- From: Carnegie, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 9:42 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: [SA-LIST] Subject not changed We just upgraded to SA 3 and so far it has been working great. I had a message this morning that I do not understand why the subject was not changed. Here is the header info. ==================================================== Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 Received: from atcoinss.atco.ca ([192.210.10.20]) by is030.atco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 02:10:55 -0600 Received: from atcoinss.atco.ca ([192.210.10.20]) by atcoinss.atco.ca (SMSSMTP 4.0.0.59) with SMTP id M2004100702101611376 ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:10:16 -0600 Received: from [211.190.151.148] (helo=192.210.10.20) by atcoinss.atco.ca with smtp (Exim ) id 1CFTLD-0007ID-UG; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:09:36 -0600 Received: from 96.18.251.192 by 211.190.151.148; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:05:36 -0200 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on atcoinss.atco.ca X-Spam-Level: **************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=16.9 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_DATE, MISSING_SUBJECT,RCVD_BY_IP,RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_SPAM,RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_RFC_IPWHOIS, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL, URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Report: * 0.0 RCVD_BY_IP Received by mail server with no name * 0.0 MISSING_DATE Missing Date: header * 0.6 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should * 0.8 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO * 1.1 RCVD_IN_RFC_IPWHOIS RBL: Sent via a relay in ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org * [211.190.151.148 has inaccurate or missing WHOIS] [data at the RIR] * 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [211.190.151.148 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 3.8 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?211.190.151.148>] * 1.7 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP * [211.190.151.148 listed in combined.njabl.org] * 0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist * [URIs: pcamgt.com] * 0.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: pcamgt.com] * 2.0 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: pcamgt.com] * 4.1 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_SPAM Bulk email fingerprint (double IP) found * 1.6 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2004 08:10:55.0684 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B90B040:01C4AC45] Date: 7 Oct 2004 02:10:55 -0600 ==================================================== So it is definitely the threshold but it did not get marked. I have attached the email for you to see it all, Thanks Martin Carnegie
