On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 15:20 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I take it by the:
>
> a) lack of usable responses
> b) responses NOT claiming this ISN'T a bug
> c) responses tacitly acknowledging this is an "Oh crap they forgot about
> BCCs when they wrote it but I don't have the balls to publicly call them
> out on it like he did"
>
> that I am dealing with a bona-fide Spamassassing design fuck-up, and in
> summary if I'm going to continue to use spamass-milter that the option
> all_spam_to is off the table.
Just 4 hours in and you're going off like that?
What do you expect by a volunteer driven Open Source project? 24/7
support with a guaranteed reaction time of less than an hour?
> That's all I needed to know. If I'm wrong, and it's me that is doing
> something wrong with the option, then tell me. But in the absence of
> that, I will have to assume that I am correct, that this is a design
> oversight/cock-up/ass-scratcher and deal with it.
You're free to assume whatever floats your boat. You're still wrong,
though, even if you *assume* you are right.
It is also pretty obvious you didn't bother to read the docs [1] before
going all ranty.
> Coolest would be someone posting a patch to spamass-milter to the list
> that would add "ignore BCC in header" as an option, just like someone
> posted a patch a few years ago for spamass-milter that adds an
> authentication bypass. (which has yet to be added to the spamassassin
> distro, even though many Linux/Unix distros now include it)
spamass-milter is NOT part of SA.
Thus, the patch you're referring to cannot and will never be added to
SA. No matter how hard you try to blame SA for not including the
spamass-milter patch...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
