On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 11:46 +0200, Axb wrote:
> Those reports are "added" by Exim's interface which does not seem to
> respect the local.cf directives.
Exim accessing SA template tags?
> On 08/29/2014 11:29 AM, Fürtbauer Wolfgang wrote:
> > unfortunatelly not, X-Spam-Reports are still there
If the option report_safe 0 is set, SA automatically adds a Report
header, though only to spam. Equivalent
add_header spam Report _REPORT_
The following is not only added to ham, but its contents are not the
_REPORT_ template tag but resemble the default "report" template, the
body text used for spam with report_safe 1.
There is no template tag to access the "report" template. Thus, this
header must be defined somewhere in the configuration, complete with all
that text, embedded \n newlines and _PREVIEW_ and _SUMMARY_ template
tags.
> > X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system
> > "hausmeister.intern.luisesteiner.at",
> > has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
> > message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
> > similar future email. If you have any questions, see
> > postmaster for details.
> >
> > Content preview: [...]
> > Content analysis details: (-221.0 points, 5.0 required)
> >
> > pts rule name description
> > ---- ----------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST From: address is in the user's white-list
> > X-Spam-Report: Software zur Erkennung von "Spam" auf dem Rechner
> > aohsupport02.asamer.holding.ah
Are there really *two* X-Spam-Report headers?
Also, why is this one in German? SA doesn't mix languages during a
single run.
Why do the hostnames differ?
And, well, which hostmaster fat-fingered that ccTLD?
--
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; }}}
