[antispam-f] Re: AntiSpam 1.58.2
- From: Harriet Bazley <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:18 +0100
On 3 Aug 2006 as I do recall,
Frank de Bruijn wrote:
> In article <c74f58504e.harriet@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> Harriet Bazley <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Given a Rule "Delete Body @ twoticks" and a user function
>
> > DEF FN@twoticks
> > *Report d$
> > IF INSTR(d$,"''")>0 THEN OSCLI"Report ticks":=TRUE
> > =FALSE
>
> > am I right in thinking that *all* messages eventually accepted by
> > default - e.g. having gone through all the rules and found no match -
> > ought to be reporting lines of body text with the above debugging
> > present, whether they actually match the search string or not?
>
> 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.
[snip]
> Your findings suggest a bug in the testing code.
The *testing* code appears to be returning the results expected.
> I'll investigate further as soon as possible.
>
On reflection I think the problem has very probably only started since I
downloaded v1.58.2 - so it's likely to be something related to the
recent changes in header handling.... (I suppose one could probably
have guessed that anyway!)
--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==
Cloning is the sincerest form of flattery.
Other related posts:
