Re: Negative spam score evaluated to positive.
Tim Aslat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.exim.vexim.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In the immortal words of Colin Dick on 09/05/08 09:47: > Thanks for the quick reply, wow. The message was allowed through and it was only the header tags that were > confusing us. Your response clears things up I think ;). No problem. > So the default message in the X-Spam-Report is a bit misleading then? Do you know where that can be changed? Not really, I haven't really been bothered by it personally but it shouldn't be too hard to find. > I see there is code in the virtual_domains router to remove the headers if the message falls below sa_tag. Perhaps > your threshhold tweak is already handled in the default vexim-2.2.1 FreeBSD port configure: > In my case, the user had a on_forward set and the delivery was handled by dnslookup router (not . Since I don't want > to interfere with any downstream SA settings, I have changed dnslookup to remove the headers. Do you see any problem > with this. Seems to work in testing (now ported to production): > > dnslookup: > driver = dnslookup > domains = ! +local_domains > headers_remove = X-Spam-Score:X-Spam-Report > transport = remote_smtp > ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8 > no_more Realistically, you might want to leave the X-Spam-Score header, and remove the X-Spam-Report one only. This gives you a reference point to show that the message was scanned, and what score it got. It's a very small amount of data, but can be immensely useful. Cheers Tim -- Tim Aslat <[email protected]> Spyderweb Consulting http://www.spyderweb.com.au Mobile: +61 0401088479