https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6657
Adam Katz <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED CC| |[email protected] Resolution|INVALID | --- Comment #3 from Adam Katz <[email protected]> 2011-09-07 18:52:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Actually, the docs only specifically mention exists:Header and Header:addr as > special header tests, with no word suggesting Header might be anything more > complicated than a plain mail header. > > The :addr one might be not that obvious, but exists:name_of_header > specifically > mentions a header name only. > > IMHO, this does not need to be supported, since exists: merely is "a very > simple version of the above header tests" (quoting the docs) and can easily be > done with an RE rule. Moreover, I believe the docs do not specifically need to > forbid this, since it doesn't suggest this to be supported. > > Not a bug IMHO, closing RESOLVED INVALID accordingly. Please feel free to > re-open the bug report, if you feel strongly about it. I worry that "invalid regexp" and "missing or invalid delimiters" might be too vague for troubleshooting this issue. Also, I think the docs are indeed ambiguous. First, it is unclear if a blank header will match an exists: test. Second, :addr is described as modifying the header for the current rule: > Appending a modifier ":addr" to a header field name will cause everything > except the first email address to be removed from the header field. Assuming exists: does not match an empty (but still present) header, this implies that a header that does not contain an address is empty and therefore does not match exists: even if it has other data. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
