Loren Wilton wrote:
So it doesn't happen that often. I did try writing an SA header rule
for these first, but it appears that SA strips out 'X-Spam-Flag'
headers out before the rules are run.
SA Strips out X-Spam-* on the assumption that it previously added
them. Previous to 3.0 it did this
Loren Wilton wrote:
X-SpamFilter-By: BOX Solutions SpamTrap 1.1 with qID lBDNlb6m031347,
This message is to be blocked by code: bkndr63272
Subject: [Spam-Mail] We invite you to join us as a Silver PowerSeller!
(This message should be blocked: bkndr63272)
Shame they didn't just block it so I
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:12:27 +
Steve Freegard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
X-SpamFilter-By: BOX Solutions SpamTrap 1.1 with qID
lBDNlb6m031347, This message is to be blocked by code: bkndr63272
Subject: [Spam-Mail] We invite you to join us as a Silver
PowerSeller!
-Original Message-
From: Giampaolo Tomassoni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:26 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Not sure why DOS_OE_TO_MX fired
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Hearn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
So it doesn't happen that often. I did try writing an SA header rule for
these first, but it appears that SA strips out 'X-Spam-Flag' headers out
before the rules are run.
SA Strips out X-Spam-* on the assumption that it previously added them.
Previous to 3.0 it did this before the rules ran
On Friday 14 December 2007 10:30 am, Loren Wilton wrote:
So it doesn't happen that often. I did try writing an SA header rule for
these first, but it appears that SA strips out 'X-Spam-Flag' headers out
before the rules are run.
SA Strips out X-Spam-* on the assumption that it previously
X-SpamFilter-By: BOX Solutions SpamTrap 1.1 with qID lBDNlb6m031347, This
message is to be blocked by code: bkndr63272
Subject: [Spam-Mail] We invite you to join us as a Silver PowerSeller! (This
message should be blocked: bkndr63272)
Shame they didn't just block it so I woudln't have to!
