[antispam-f] Re: AntiSpam 1.58.2
- From: Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 07:49:14 +0200
In article <47909b514e.harriet@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Harriet Bazley <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2006 as I do recall, Frank de Bruijn wrote:
[snip]
> 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
Hmmmmm... Maybe an option to ignore blank lines *inside* the body text
would be useful?
> - but it still wasn't getting called for those messages anyway. :-(
Strange.
> 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.
I must admit I didn't look any further after I discovered the bit of
code that was eating blank lines [1]. I'll check. Unfortunately, I won't
be near a RISC OS computer from later today until at least August 20.
[snip]
> > 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! :-)
Understandable. Maybe it's time to change the 'testing' state to
'checking' (I did think about this when I started working on AntiSpam
but decided against it at the time).
Regards,
Frank
[1] Because that *was* the root cause: no blank line, no switch to
checking body lines. However, with two adjacent blank lines, only
the first was swallowed. So in those messages, the switch *was*
made.
Other related posts:
