[antispam-f] Re: AntiSpam 1.58.2

  • From: Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:18:26 +0200

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? [1]

> > 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?

> > 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!)

That's possible, of course, although this involved only minor changes in
three lines of code.
Load Docs.Source in StrongED and search for 150] to see where. If you
compare these lines to the ones in the previous version, you'll see all
that was done is take carriage returns out of the equation.


[1] I noticed in the files you sent earlier, that the body of the
    deleted message had an extra blank line at the start. At this
    moment, I haven't got the faintest idea whether or not this is
    significant, though...

Other related posts: