Parsing Received Headers

I'm trying to get received headers to parse correctly because the ones from CommuniGate Pro don't always. And, since I'm already modifying the headers in my connector due to the MTA not being able to do RDNS without rejecting based on it, I'm not aware that certain types of headers don't parse correctly. My current problem is this one:

Received: from [206.74.184.2] (HELO [206.74.184.2])

	 by mail.wcg.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11)
	 with ESMTP id 22363646
	 for xxxx@wcg.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:32:08 -0700

Which is unmodified except for the obscuring of the email address. My RDNS lookup was modifying the header to read:

Received: from [206.74.184.2] (HELO [206.74.184.2]) (206.74.184.2)

	 by mail.wcg.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11)
	 with ESMTP id 22363646
	 for ken.williams@wcg.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:32:08 -0700

Meaning that there was no RDNS for 206.74.184.2 and when it said helo, it said "HELO [206.74.184.2]". However, SA is not parsing it that way. So, can anyone tell me how to write the received header so SA understands it?

How do I know it's not parsing correctly? Debug log:

[-2240] dbg: received-header: parsed as [ ip=206.74.184.2 rdns=HELO
helo=!206.74.184.2! by=mail.wcg.org ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=22363646 auth= msa=0 ]
[-2240] dbg: received-header: relay 206.74.184.2 trusted? no internal? no
msa? no
[-2240] dbg: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Trusted:
[-2240] dbg: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted: [ ip=206.74.184.2 rdns=HELO
helo=!206.74.184.2! by=mail.wcg.org ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=22363646 auth=

msa=0 ]

Obviously, the RDNS wasn't "HELO".

Do you need help?
In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related spamassassin.apache.org Links users Request more information about Pantek

Or perhaps I should just open a bug ticket to fix SA's "not understanding" problem...

Bret