Hi David, On Mon, Nov 09, 2026 at 01:41:16PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > There does seem to be a penalty for adding Reply-To to a post. > I don't understand how SpamAssassin works, but when I receive posts > rejected by bendel, I sometimes glance at its² results. For example, > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2026/09/msg00241.html > was at first rejected, entirely because of the " ?" at the end of > the Subject line. Here's a list of the first post's non-zero scores: > > X-Spamd-Result: default: False [7.20 / 999.00]; ¹ > REPLYTO_EQ_TO_ADDR(5.00)[]; ←------------------------ > ENVFROM_SERVICE_ACCT(1.00)[]; > SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ←------------------------ > > FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[[email protected],[email protected]]; > ONCE_RECEIVED(0.20)[]; > MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; > REPLYTO_MX_WHITE(-0.10)[lists.debian.org]; > MX_GOOD(-0.10)[mail.lionunicorn.co.uk];
I don't think that header was added by Debian's infrastructure. The headers are added in chronological order so you should be able to tell roughjly which mail server added that by its placement. However some headers can appear only once and I think if a later server adds a header of the same name it will overwrite the earlier one. The list's SpamAssassin appears to use the header X-Amavis-Spam-Status. I can see why whoever added that header might think setting reply-to to the same as to is a bit odd, but 5 points seems a little harsh. Although if it's 5 out of 999 then maybe not. When you talk about the Debian list notifying you of mail that has been rejected, you do realise it's telling you about mail it sent that *your receiving infrastructure* rejected, right? Not rejected by Debian. This is a bit confusing because I introduced a tangent about headers added by Debian and you appear to have gone off on a new one about headers added and actions done by your side on receipt. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
