[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Giovanni Bechis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||giova...@paclan.it Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #10 from Giovanni Bechis --- Rule added to sandbox with commit r1839799 on Bill's sandbox. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Bill Cole changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sa-bugz-20080315@billmail.s ||cconsult.com --- Comment #9 from Bill Cole --- I have added test rules for this to my sandbox for RuleQA testing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.1 |Undefined --- Comment #8 from Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com --- Rules are not bound to a specific code release. Changing to undefined release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||antis...@khopis.com --- Comment #7 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com --- Be careful with this, MS Exchange (and, separately, MS Outlook) will note the missing To header by adding one that looks like this: To: Undisclosed recipients:; Other inbox servers and/or email clients and/or combinations of those may have other defaults. This means that mass-check runs on corpora partially constructed from infrastructure that mucks with this will give erroneous results. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.0 |3.4.1 --- Comment #6 from Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com --- Moving all open bugs where target is defined and 3.4.0 or lower to 3.4.1 target -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|Undefined |3.4.0 --- Comment #5 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si --- hmm... MISSING_HEADERS is operating only on To: header Right, your rules set seems more to the point. If multiple (although illegal) From/To/Cc header fields are taken into account, a regexp /m flag should be used: header __HAS_FROM exists:From header __HAS_TO exists:To header __HAS_CC exists:CC header __EMPTY_FROM From =~ /^\s*$/m header __EMPTY_TO To =~ /^\s*$/m header __EMPTY_CC Cc =~ /^\s*$/m meta EMPTY_FROM_OR_TO_OR_CC (__EMPTY_FROM __HAS_FROM) || (__EMPTY_TO __HAS_TO) || (__EMPTY_CC __HAS_CC) describe EMPTY_FROM_OR_TO_OR_CC Contains a header field that is blank and shouldn't be. score EMPTY_FROM_OR_TO_OR_CC 1.0 ( If we don't care to for multiple instances, a rule like header __EMPTY_FROM From !~ /\S/ might be faster. ) Btw, a __HAS_FROM rule we already have (along with __HAS_RCVD, __HAS_MESSAGE_ID, __HAS_DATE and __HAS_SUBJECT). Can't hurt to add __HAS_TO and __HAS_CC for completeness, even if it turns out they won't be used. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Lemat le...@lemat.priv.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||le...@lemat.priv.pl --- Comment #3 from Lemat le...@lemat.priv.pl 2012-04-03 23:57:11 UTC --- Kevin, your rules do match the spamrun I see. Meanwhile I was also testing something different: header __HAS_FROM exists:From header __EMPTY_FROM From =~ /^\s*$/ meta EMPTY_FROM __HAS_FROM __EMPTY_FROM describe EMPTY_FROM empty from score EMPTY_FROM 1 header __HAS_TO exists:To header __EMPTY_TO To =~ /^\s*$/ meta EMPTY_TO __HAS_TO __EMPTY_TO describe EMPTY_TO empty to score EMPTY_TO 1 and it also did the job. But (I believe) your rule is faster. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780
--- Comment #4 from Lemat le...@lemat.priv.pl 2012-04-04 00:16:34 UTC ---
hmm... MISSING_HEADERS is operating only on To: header:
header MISSING_HEADERS eval:check_for_missing_to_header()
sub check_for_missing_to_header {
my ($self, $pms) = @_;
my $hdr = $pms-get('To');
$hdr = $pms-get('Apparently-To') if $hdr eq '';
return 1 if $hdr eq '';
return 0;
}
which is not exactly identical to what I have been thinking about. And I have
been thinking not about AND but OR, something like that:
header __EMPTY_FROM From =~ /^\s*$/
header __EMPTY_TO To =~ /^\s*$/
header __EMPTY_CC Cc =~ /^\s*$/
header __HAS_FROM exists:From
header __HAS_TO exists:To
header __HAS_CC exists:CC
meta EMPTY_TO_OR_FROM_OR_CC (__HAS_TO __EMPTY_TO) || (__HAS_FROM
__EMPTY_FROM) || (__HAS_CC __EMPTY_CC)
describe EMPTY_TO_OR_FROM_OR_CC Mail contains headers that are blank and
shouldn't be.
score EMPTY_TO_OR_FROM_OR_CC 1.0
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kmcgr...@pccc.com --- Comment #2 from Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com 2012-04-02 22:03:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) If these rules only operate when the header is present, the I suggest the same with ALL other headers except Bcc: - since if present, they may not be empty. Only BCC is permitted to be empty when present, and except for mail submission agent processing, is expected ans supposed to be empty if present. I agree. I think it needs a meta for !MISSING_HEADERS. header __EMPTY_FROM From =~ /^\s*$/ header __EMPTY_TO To =~ /^\s*$/ header __EMPTY_CC Cc =~ /^\s*$/ meta EMPTY_TO_AND_FROM (!MISSING_HEADERS (__EMPTY_FROM + __EMPTY_TO + __EMPTY_CC = 2)) describe EMPTY_TO_AND_FROM Mail contains headers that are blank and shouldn't be. score EMPTY_TO_AND_FROM 1.0 Lemat, the above passes lint. Does it hit on the emails you are seeing? regards, KAM -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6780] Existing but empty From: and To:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6780 D. Stussy software+spamassas...@kd6lvw.ampr.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||software+spamassassin@kd6lv ||w.ampr.org --- Comment #1 from D. Stussy software+spamassas...@kd6lvw.ampr.org 2012-03-31 22:56:20 UTC --- If these rules only operate when the header is present, the I suggest the same with ALL other headers except Bcc: - since if present, they may not be empty. Only BCC is permitted to be empty when present, and except for mail submission agent processing, is expected ans supposed to be empty if present. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
