On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:39:57 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
> On 17.10.14 10:08, jdebert wrote: > >Will URIBL_BLOCKED cause [SPAM] to be inserted into Subject? > > no, it will more likely cause [SPAM] _not_ to be inserted, because it > wouldn't be detected. Good. Had me worried a bit there. (^_^) > > >Also, doesn't sa insert something else a bit different? Isn't it > >likely that someone else inserted that before the OP's server ever > >saw it? > > If SA inserts anything to Subject: and what it is, depends only on SA > configuration. It's the "rewrite_header" configuration directive. > Of course. I was thinking at the time that some other spam filter/tagger that used that by default might have done this. After posting, realised that the config would have to be changed for that. Forgot to ask if it was the case. I recall some cases in the past where spam filtering setups, such as those for "antispam" appliances did such things by default without adding any headers. I suspected this might be the case here. Too many possibilities, too little data. jd
