https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7992
John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jhar...@impsec.org
--- Comment #18 from John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> ---
I like the syntax, too.
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #16)
> If a regex rule depends on a tag %{FOO} and no match is found for it, should
> we consider it as unrun? I guess so. Doesn't make much sense to try matching
> the literal value anyway.
There are no %{MUMBLE} rules in the base ruleset but if anyone defined some
locally for some reason they'd stop working as expected.
Perhaps a check for that match name being defined, and if no rule was defined
to capture that name then treat it as a literal? Do we need/want to lint for
that? "Rule X contains '%{MUMBLE}' but no rule captures tag MUMBLE"? Seems a
good idea.
What is the recommended CAN() test for this so we can guard rules using the new
syntax from bothering old code?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
