You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by marti <ma...@ntlworld.com> on 2004/10/27 21:07:47 UTC

Subject spam tag not working

I'm running SA 3.0.0 and have put the following in user_prefs &
local.cf(restarted spamd):-

rewrite_subject 1
subject_tag **SPAM**

But still not getting the subject tagged, what am I missing? All was fine
with the previous version.

Martin


RE: Subject spam tag not working

Posted by marti <ma...@ntlworld.com>.
rewrite_header subject **SPAM**

this could have been better highlighted. but oh well...

-- 
Many thanks, knew it was probably something simple but had spent too long
readin the man pages, seems like they need updating

Jim, I cant find in my CHANGES file the correct syntax it just says
"...noted rewrite_subject is now dropped..."
Maybe in 3.0.1 this may be different


Re: Subject spam tag not working

Posted by martin f krafft <us...@mass.madduck.net>.
also sprach marti <ma...@ntlworld.com> [2004.10.27.2107 +0200]:
> rewrite_subject 1
> subject_tag **SPAM**

rewrite_header subject **SPAM**

this could have been better highlighted. but oh well...

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
 
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net
 
"never trust a woman who wears mauve, whatever her age may be, or a
 woman over thirty-five who is fond of pink ribbons. it always means
 they have a history."
                                                        -- oscar wilde

Re: Subject spam tag not working

Posted by Jim Maul <jm...@elih.org>.
marti wrote:
> I'm running SA 3.0.0 and have put the following in user_prefs &
> local.cf(restarted spamd):-
> 
> rewrite_subject 1
> subject_tag **SPAM**
> 
> But still not getting the subject tagged, what am I missing? All was fine
> with the previous version.
> 
>

Your missing the part where you read the CHANGES file in SA 3.0 where it 
explains that this syntax has changed.

-Jim