SpamAssassin classifies MailScanner reports like SPAM
john at tradoc.fr
Wed Mar 23 15:32:17 UTC 2016
I get the impression we're talking at cross purposes here. I entirely
agree that MailScanner should make minimal changes to *original messages*.
But the OP was talking about MailScanner *reports*, which should
definitely, IMHO, be properly formed (i.e. RFC-compliant) even if the
original message wasn't.
Le 23/03/2016 à 16:10, Alex Neuman van der Hans a écrit :
> I beg to rediffer. There's a limit to what MailScanner should
> "sanitize". The less it touches the original message, and the more of
> it gets delivered, "warts and all", the better - some might think.
>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:40 AM, John Wilcock <john at tradoc.fr
>> <mailto:john at tradoc.fr>> wrote:
>> I beg to differ.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MailScanner