On 10/04/2014 03:18 PM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:32:17 +0200
Axb wrote:
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
I'd like to see some evidence that these headers are harmful before it's
set unconditionally like that.
I had a quick look at my own mail and found that barracuda headers made
it through to X-Spam-tokens in only about 0.2% of spam and ham; and when
they did they were mostly in the spam token lists for spam and equally
spread between the two lists for ham.
Pls let us know when you have the stats.
