SpamAssassin not filtering domain aliases, SMTP Level Scanning - v5.12

I’m noticing an odd issue with v5.12.

When I have SMTP Level Scanning enabled, SpamAssassin works correctly, and filters all domain e-mail aliases with outbound forwarding. When I have it disabled, SpamAssassin never runs for any e-mail aliases, only for local mailboxes. I think the ideal behavior is to filter outbound forwarded e-mails, but I might be mistaken.

Siteworx:
SpamAssassin Status: On

Nodeworx:
SMTP Level Scanning: Enabled
SMTP Spam Score Threshold: 25
E-mail Aliases with Forward Outbound:
Behavior: SpamAssassin filters mail, X-SPAM headers show in e-mail message.

Received: (qmail 7558 invoked by uid 108); 15 Jan 2014 07:18:31 -0600
Delivered-To: xxx@xxx.net
Received: (qmail 7537 invoked by uid 108); 15 Jan 2014 07:18:30 -0600
Delivered-To: xxx@xxx.com
Received: (qmail 7516 invoked by uid 108); 15 Jan 2014 07:18:30 -0600
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on web1.reverse.net
X-Spam-Level: ******
X-Spam-Status: No, score=6.1 required=10.0 tests=BAYES_99,MISSING_SUBJECT,
RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
Received: from unknown (HELO r2d2.reverse.net) (69.162.167.7)
by web1.reverse.net with SMTP; 15 Jan 2014 07:18:25 -0600

Nodeworx:
SMTP Level Scanning: Disabled
E-mail Aliases with Forward Outbound:
Behavior: SpamAssasin doesn’t filter mail, no X-SPAM headers, simply forwards mail.

Received: (qmail 10528 invoked by uid 108); 15 Jan 2014 07:27:44 -0600
Delivered-To: xxx@xxx.net
Received: (qmail 10507 invoked by uid 108); 15 Jan 2014 07:27:44 -0600
Delivered-To: xxx@xxx.com
Received: (qmail 10485 invoked by uid 108); 15 Jan 2014 07:27:43 -0600
Received: from unknown (HELO r2d2.reverse.net) (69.162.167.7)
by web1.reverse.net with SMTP; 15 Jan 2014 07:27:43 -0600

Hi nightwalker

I hope you don’t mind but I think it is because you can disable either in nodeworx or siteworx independently I think.

So it is possible to scan local mailboxes if siteworx enabled and no scan outbound if nodeworx disabled.

I could be wrong though, sorry and I’ll reread your post as I am little tired and may have misunderstood sorry.

Many thanks

John