Hello Robert, > Now, I am a bit uncertain about what would be the best practice for a > milter to place its headers. > > I've patched spamass milter to let any previously added "X-Spam" > headers untouched, and just add its own headers on top of the header > list as required by spamassassin's results, thus leaving it up to the > downstream software to choose which "X-Spam" headers to use for furter > processing. This is okay for me. > > In its original code, spamass-milter adds its own headers to the bottom > of the header list, or updates existing "X-Spam" headers in place if > their names match those spamass-milter uses. > > What do you think?
I can’t speak for spamass-milter, but in an alternative milter that I created¹, I tried to emulate what the ‘spamassassin’ executable does: Delete all incoming X-Spam- headers, and insert the newly added headers at the top. Ciao, David ¹ https://crates.io/crates/spamassassin-milter
