>Justin was only mentioning it because a particular deficiency in the >*documentation* that came up in this thread was fixed in 3.2.0 >(currently in devel).
OK. I had misunderstood. If it is only the *documentation* which is fixed in 3.2.0 then do we understand why the email in my original posting was not being recognised as white listed? Going back to the original issue... I have the following entry in my Webmin Spam-assassin table called: "From: addresses to never classify as spam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also have the following header info in an email conforming to this from address: Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Flag: YES Should the Return-Path be recognised as a white list match? If so - do we understand why it isn't happening here? If not - shouldn't it be? Thanks to all who have commented so far... Richard. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:46 AM To: Richard Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Spamassassin doesn't seem to obey my whitelist Richard wrote: > Thanks all > > Sounds link I need to update to SA 3.2.0 or later. Normally I just wait for > updates to come through Centos update system (Up2date) - but perhaps I > should give it a hurry on. 3.2.0 isn't released yet. Justin was only mentioning it because a particular deficiency in the *documentation* that came up in this thread was fixed in 3.2.0 (currently in devel).
