http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4106
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-25 17:46 ------- Subject: Re: URI rules do not check name servers against RHS lists. >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 25 17:17:49 2005 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Bug 4106] URI rules do not check name servers against RHS lists. >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Bugzilla-Reason: Reporter >Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:17:26 -0800 (PST) > >http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4106 > >------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-25 17:17 ------- >Subject: Re: New: URI rules do not check name servers against RHS lists. > >Sounds good. Maybe this should use a different rule type? > >------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- >You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. > After some discussions (a while ago with Jeff C. of SURBL) and checking the existing code, I'm pretty sure the actual changes required are on the order of a full day or two of work (at least for me - where perl is a fourth or fifth language). I don't believe a different rule is appropriate as this is a simple enhancement to existing functionality, in fact for 3.0.x, there are no RHS URI rules - though I did just file another bug report containing many (Bugzilla #4104). Paul Shupak P.S. What is needed is construct similar to urirhssub such as (the nonexistent) uridnsblsub which *could* save many DNS queries (like for the SPEWS cases I listed in #4104). ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
