https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6700
--- Comment #4 from Mark Martinec <[email protected]> 2011-11-15 01:19:21 UTC --- > Thanks. Good catch. That explains the behavior I'm seeing. This is > undocumented and outside the scope of the rule type. > OK, so going back as far as 3.2.5, the uri rule apparently purposefully also > adds the domain from the DKIM/DomainKey Signature header. > So should the documentation be changed or the rule uri parsing? To me, it > seems VERY hackish that the only headers for URI rules are domainkeys/dkim. Hackish indeed. No idea what was the rationale. I'd vote for throwing it out. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
