|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > spamassassin-users archives|
On 12/12/2011 8:58 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:29:07 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> For DNSWL, 6718 is a dupe and 6668 is considered resolved with the
>> changing of the DNSWL scores to 0 which will be effective in the next
> DNSWL is scaned in deep received, but none have reporteed this :(
DNSWL for SA is implemented with first-trusted on all the tests in SA I
found. I don't see any deep-header parsing.
> #6718 should have being resolved wont-fix
No, it was a duplicate complaint. Marking it a duplicate was accurate IMO.
> #6668 agree on comment #1, the rest is just fuss imho
As I wrote comment 1, I have to agree it was brilliant ;-)