On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:15:11 Walter Hurry wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:18:13 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > On 8/15/2011 10:57 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> :0
> >>
> >> * ^Subject.*SPAM\([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]\).* $HOME/Maildir/.Spam//
>
> <snip>
>
> > This message is going through SA twice.
>
> Indeed. And by the way, for what it is worth, my .procmailrc says (inter
> alia)
>
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> # The trailing slashdot means do it as MH
> # instead of MBOX (the default)
> junk/.
>
> # Otherwise it falls through
>
> May I suggest that that's rather simpler than the regex which you are
> using?
>
Of course, and that's what I wanted to do, except that if you have a look at
my X-Spam-Status header it says "No", which is the opposite of what I expect
for a message marked as spam (apparently due, as already suggested, to
spamassassin processing the message twice).
> In addition, should I in the future decide for some reason to change or
> revoke the subject rewriting, I won't need to change .procmailrc.
Of course, if I can just get the message flagged as Spam in the headers, I'll
be able to do the same. ;-)
--
======================================================
Rodney Baker
rod...@jeremiah31-10.net
web: www.jeremiah31-10.net
======================================================
