Whitelisting not working

[#1]

An email from an address I have white listed has been identified as spam and put in to my spam mailbox.
Has anyone seen evidence that whitelisting is working.
(Bob, The offending email is in the spam mailbox for my personal domain. '1755' will confirm you have found the correct message)

[#2]

Digest 1756 arrived a few minutes ago - sending email the same as is in my whitelist. It's also been identified as spam.

[#3]

Just had a look and the Envelope address the message has been sent from (Return-path) isn't what you have in your whitelist. You confident this worked with Ironport?

[#4]

Difficult to tell if it worked on IronPort. Those emails were definitely arriving not marked as spam under IronPort, but whether that was because they were whitelisted or because IronPort didn't decide they were spam I can't tell (I haven't any old ones to check the headers).
I'm not sure what percentage of your users are going to be aware of looking in the headers to identify the correct email address to put in the white/black lists, but you definitely need to put something in the notes that it has to be the return-path address. Could I suggest that the instructions say that in the mail client you start a reply and copy the address from the "To" generated in the draft email.
Edit: I've now changed my whitelist to have the return-path (I wasn't aware of this requirement before).

[#5]

Having changed the whitelisting entry to the return path it's still not working.
Yesterday's digest was sent to the spam mailbox.

[#6]

Is the email still on the server jelv?

[#7]

Yes - it's in the inbox of the spam mailbox for my personal domain.

[#8]

I too am having problems with mail from senders in my whitelist being wrongly identified as spam. I've been putting the From address (or domain) in my whitelist and certainly have seen no indication in the documentation that I should be using the Return-path. I've got a misidentified message in my spam folder at the moment where the From and Return-path are certainly different (very likely to be the case with newsletters I imagine). The newsletter in question (Bruce Schneier's CRYPTO-GRAM)  certainly didn't used to be identified as spam.
I have raised this issue with the support team, who who seem to have missed the point as they have suggested that using the new webmail should help. I'll see if I can make the problem any clearer for them.
Suggestions on how to trouble-shoot this would be welcome.

[#9]

I have an open ticket about CryptoGram being bounced. It's not even making it to my Spam folder so must be being rejected at the first layer.
Spooky seeing as Bruce Schneier is BTs security adviser