On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
> David B Funk writes:
> >
> >I can see two different ways to handle this, either make SA more
> >flexible and decode the bastardized QP so normal rules will hit
> >or write a rule that hits such bastardized QP coding as a spam-tool
> >signature.
>
> Are you sure about this? If it's the case, we do need to
> decode it, and it would be great to have it reported as a bug.
>
> - --j.
I've not dissected the SA code but empirical testing indicates it.
(Take Larry's snippet, change those '=2e' to '=2E' and watch
SA properly parse it).
I had noticed the same phenomenon before but was too lazy to track
it down. ;) With Larry's query as a prod, I took the time to test
it and look up the relevant RFC.
Dave
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
