Am Sonntag, dem 09.07.2023 um 19:23 +0200 schrieb David Bürgin: > Hello Robert, > > > Now, I am a bit uncertain about what would be the best practice for > > a > > milter to place its headers. > > > > I've patched spamass milter to let any previously added "X-Spam" > > headers untouched, and just add its own headers on top of the > > header > > list as required by spamassassin's results, thus leaving it up to > > the > > downstream software to choose which "X-Spam" headers to use for > > furter > > processing. This is okay for me. > > > > In its original code, spamass-milter adds its own headers to the > > bottom > > of the header list, or updates existing "X-Spam" headers in place > > if > > their names match those spamass-milter uses. > > > > What do you think? > > I can’t speak for spamass-milter, but in an alternative milter that I > created¹, I tried to emulate what the ‘spamassassin’ executable does: > Delete all incoming X-Spam- headers, and insert the newly added > headers > at the top. > > Ciao, > David > Thanks David, never heard of spamassassin-milter before (it's not in the Debian repos), but I'll give it a try as there seem to be more issues with spamass-milter.
Robert > ¹ https://crates.io/crates/spamassassin-milter -- Robert Senger
