On Thu, 20 May 2004, Matt Kettler wrote: > It is possible that the character in question was a high-bit char. You did > some text substitution so that could have changed things.
Yes, I wasn't expecting people to be able to 'test' what I mailed, but I was hoping someone would recognize the description/conditions I listed. > 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) Sorry. It got munched. The 'text' is still there, but my saved copy now passes my check. Which really makes me suspect either a high bit character, or an embedded non-printable character that spoiled the test. I thought I saved the original, but it was gone. Ooops. > Well * is DEFINIETLY a part of the \W class. Well, yeah, I thought so, but I'm grasping at straws here. :-) > Yes, it would require mime headers. I'd made that guess since you only > pasted a sample string and no other information. Sorry, I thought I'd made it plain (pun intended) that this was a very ordinary, single-part message. No mime, no characterset specifcations. Whatever they did was buried in there. Either that or my local.cf file just barfed for some reason (it was linting okay, but I've updated it today, so that might have made a difference.....). Anyways, I will try the print body idea, or convert this puppy to hex next time I get one..... And if it is a new spammer trick, you know I'll get one. :-) Thanks! - Charles
