Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Charlie Brady
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Shad L. Lords wrote: Johan Almqvist wrote: On 5. nov. 2009, at 19.55, Shad L. Lords wrote: > Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: > > > This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way would > > > be to fix header-

Received: in DKIM (was: Re: Move clamav headers at top)

2009-11-05 Thread Johan Almqvist
On 5. nov. 2009, at 20.38, Shad L. Lords wrote: Johan Almqvist wrote: Are you sure you're not confusing this with SpamAssassin expecting 'From_' lines in /var/spool/mail-format mailboxes (see RFC-976)? That is what I'm referring to. And I think I was confused on the plugin as well. No

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Shad L. Lords
Johan Almqvist wrote: On 5. nov. 2009, at 19.55, Shad L. Lords wrote: Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way would be to fix header->add to always stick the headers at the top. Sounds good to me.

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Johan Almqvist
On 5. nov. 2009, at 19.55, Shad L. Lords wrote: Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way would be to fix header->add to always stick the headers at the top. Sounds good to me. Would that mess up an

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Chris Lewis
Shad L. Lords wrote: Filippo Carletti wrote: Without the details and without an inline patch, I can't apply this. Sorry for having been terse. I don't have the details, I've been told that message signing fails if headers are added at bottom. This patch move them on top: Headers should always

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Robert Spier
Shad L. Lords wrote: > > Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: > > > >> This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way > >> would be to fix header->add to always stick the headers at the top. > > Sounds good to me. Would that mess up anything

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Shad L. Lords
Robert Spier wrote: Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way would be to fix header->add to always stick the headers at the top. Sounds good to me. Would that mess up anything else? The conventio

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Robert Spier
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > > > On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: > > > This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way would > > be to fix header->add to always stick the headers at the top. > > Sounds good to me. Would that mess up anything else? The convention,

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Shad L. Lords
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way would be to fix header->add to always stick the headers at the top. Sounds good to me. Would that mess up anything else? The only thing to be aware of is s

Re: Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-05 Thread Ask Bjørn Hansen
On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:31, Shad L. Lords wrote: This might not be the best place to fix this. The correct way would be to fix header->add to always stick the headers at the top. Sounds good to me. Would that mess up anything else?

Move clamav headers at top

2009-11-04 Thread Filippo Carletti
http://github.com/filippocarletti/qpsmtpd/blob/0c8c3fbd4a79d4ef3536ff90e3bb1595bbad0fe9/packaging/rpm/files/qpsmtpd-0.83-clamav-headers.patch I don't know the details, but headers have to be at top or problems with digitally signed mail arise. -- Ciao, Filippo