On 4 Aug 2006 as I do recall, Frank de Bruijn wrote: > In article <f3e1c7504e.harriet@xxxxxxxxxx>, > Harriet Bazley <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3 Aug 2006 as I do recall, Frank de Bruijn wrote: > > > > Yes, as long as there are non empty lines in the first X body lines > > > (where X is the number of body lines to process) and the option to treat > > > those body lines as header lines is off. > > > I've just spotted another one which ought to have failed on an *earlier* > > (i.e. higher up the file) unrelated rule which checks the first line of > > body text - so it does look as if there is a hole somewhere in the > > trialling code which is failing to process the body text checks at all > > for certain e-mails. > > How many blank lines did this message have between header and body?  After making the changes suggested below ( L%+=sb% : sb%=L% ) I'm now seeing a couple of messages with the extra blank line you mention. Unfortunate in practice, since it pushes the relevant text below the testing range of the rule - but it still wasn't getting called for those messages anyway. :-( I'm also seeing a different couple (out of about eight containing the offending text) of messages where the 'twoticks' body text Rule *is* now logged as being called... once only, whereas AntiSpam is configured to test the first three lines. These messages do not seem to contain the extra blank line. Still something wrong here, I think. > > > > Your findings suggest a bug in the testing code. > > > The *testing* code appears to be returning the results expected. > > Now you've lost me. I thought you wrote trialling (i.e. using the Trial > window) of these messages worked properly while testing (checking before > downloading - or not) didn't? Terminology confusion - I assumed 'testing' referred to simulating download via the Trial window, as opposed to actually deleting anything! :-) -- Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie == We have met the enemy, and he is us.