Perhaps if the spamassassin module stored the local spamd scoring in the transaction header we wouldn't have to re-scan to find the value. I could think of other modules I use which would find the spamd score useful. Not the least of which is summary logging.
peter On 9/24/04 12:13 PM, "Michael Holzt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It seems unlikely that spammers would forge X-Spam-Status headers that >> mark the message as being spam. Of course there are no guarantees, but >> at this stage I have little reason to disbelieve such headers. > > So you would believe a 'X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 [...]" line forged by a > spammer? Think about a script scanning for 'X-Spam-Status: No' and have a > hit on the first occurence. Might very well be the forged one. I believe > there have been reports about spammers trying that trick. > >> The MUA just looks for any X-Spam-Score header which indicates that the >> message is spam. > > Might, or might not. You can't tell for sure. What you can tell is that > having multiple X-Spam-Status line is different from major implementations > like qmail-scanner or amavisd-new. I guess we have to go with that. > > > -kju
