SA triggered fine on a URI rule in the same message, and there were no 'mime parts' to confuse it. My best guess is that one of the characters is somehow not really alphabetic, but is like a 'high bit' version of the letter?
It is possible that the character in question was a high-bit char. You did some text substitution so that could have changed things.
Any chance you can send me the exact string and exact rule that failed to match? (in an off-list message if you don't want to post it to the list)
Or maybe '*' is not part of the \W class?
Well * is DEFINIETLY a part of the \W class. I actually copy-pasted your rule and text into a test config and test message. The rule hit your sample text, complete with *'s, just fine.
> I'd venture to guess the original message has some weird mime tricks > that are confusing SA's mime parser.
Wouldn't that require mime headers/sections? Why would a URI parse fine, but the text not?
Yes, it would require mime headers. I'd made that guess since you only pasted a sample string and no other information.
