http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3269
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-15 23:18 ------- Subject: Re: MIME parser issues vs. 2.63 On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 10:39:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hmmm... is there a logical way we could also catch multiple closes. it does. =1 when it finds an open, -- when it finds a close, alert on != 0. so 1 open and 2 closes makes -1, which != 0, so trigger. > Ideally, we'd test complete correctness to catch incorrectly nested > stuff and other types of errors: > > --boundary_a > > --boundary_b > > --boundary_a-- > > --boundary_b-- the way the parser works, that'll get caught if the message is boundary_a and part 1 specifies boundary_b. anything after the boundary_a close is ignored. so the rule triggers due to no close for boundary_b. > I think the current test also would miss an extra close (before an open > and close which would leave the state at zero). yes, which is (iirc) perfectly valid according to the rfc. any before the open is "preamble" and is discarded. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
