https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
--- Comment #5 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> 2011-10-18 19:08:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Maybe we could make a rule just to detect this problem? A rule won't work (or be inefficient, see below), because SA headers get X-Spam prepended -- however, a cheap header rule won't work, because SA drops all existing X-Spam headers for this kind of test. While this occasionally comes up, I don't think it's worth detecting. It's a mis-configuration of the mail processing chain, not exactly our business. Moreover, there *are* legitimate cases where one might want to process mail a second time in user-land. -1 on adding such detection That said, it *is* already possible to investigate and detect processing mail a second time with SA. It's a rather costly rule, but it quickly can be thrown in to the configuration for investigation -- well, if one doesn't know how ones own mail processing chain works... As mentioned, header rules won't work. The expensive full rule, however, does. full HELLO_OLD_FRIEND /^X-Spam-Checker-Version: .+ _HOSTNAME_$/m The _HOSTNAME_ is just a placeholder (the Template Tag used), and must be substituted in that rule with the actual value. If you want, you can also do this with your specific, unique magic number or secret. Just add_header it, and modify the rule above to match against your X-Spam-Magic header. add_header all Magic "Magic is real, unless defined integer." -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
