[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:


> 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. :-(


> 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.


> > 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).


[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*

Other related posts: