|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > spamassassin-dev archives|
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Sorry, I read your post but didn't have a definitive answer. I agreed
> with your logic but haven't looked at the code to see if you are
> correct. That code is about a decade old and is in my category of "just
> works". Have you tried a debug with the C-based spamd to see what it
I've debugged the spamd script and it definitely receives other header
information for the given examples:
When reporting a spam message the SET header contains the value
â€˜local,remoteâ€™ and not â€˜local,removeâ€™ like mentioned in the example.
The curious thing about this is that Justin did â€˜correctâ€™ it from remote to
remove some time ago, not sure what this was for:
There are two issues with the revoke example as well:
The message-class is ham instead of spam, so the set: local also makes sense
again as the message will be learned as ham in the same step.
Besides this, the remove header contains the correct value â€˜remoteâ€™ and not
â€˜removeâ€™, so same issue as with the report example (copy/paste?)
Iâ€™ve opened a bug and set Justin to the cc list.
-- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/SpamAssassin-protocol-examples-tp31001608p31068134.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.