http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3781
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-15 08:05 -------
Subject: Re: There should be a rule type for mime part headers
> true. would it be worthwhile being able to match against MIME hdrs from
> specific sub-parts of a message, or is matching against MIME hdrs from all
> sub-parts at once OK?
>
> AFAICS, the latter should be fine, but I'm not certain.
I debated this when I wrote the idea up. The best I can say at the moment
is "I don't know".
I *do* know that when manually examining a spam I'm usually interested in
one particular mime header and not others that may be there. But I can't
think how I would be able to describe any particular header beyond "look at
them until I find the one I want". Which isn't very useful.
I don't think that (for example) concatenating all of the Content-Encoding
parts from all headers into a single combined header (like is done for
Received in the main header) would be particularly useful or a particularly
good idea. I think they should probably be served to the RE as individual
'lines', and the rule simply called a sufficient number of times. As for
ALL, I think it should serve each mime header as an entity to the rule, but
not concatenate all headers into a single entity.
Doing things this way would make it difficult to do tests across multiple
headers at once. But so far I haven't found a need to do that, and I'm
concerned about getting false results if the headers got combined. I think
to handle that we could probably do something redundant like ALL:full or
ALL:ALL to tell the rule-driver to combine all the appropriate things into a
single string. Right now I can't imagine actually using that construct.
But that doesn't mean that I might not find a rare use for it tomorrow.
Loren
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
