The rule triggers on this string for me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the unanimous feedback Kevin and Matt. But if this is true, why does the rule not trigger this string:
<COMMENT></COMMENT>am Rem<COMMENT>mortgage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Peuhkurinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 12:52 PM
> To: Jason Burzenski
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Strange Rule
>
>
> The body test will remove the HTML tags, so that you are left with:
>
> am Remmortgage
>
> The second element in your test looks for "m.ortgage", which
> matches the
> "mmortgage" above.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Can anyone tell me why the following string:
> >
> ><STRONG><COMMENT></COMMENT>am Rem<COMMENT>mortgage
> >
> >Matches the following rule?
> >
> >body AAA_MORTGAGE /m0rt|m.ortgage|Mort\sgage|m�³age/I
> >
> >I made this rule while trying to block mortgage terms with
> high ascii
> >in them and it seems to have gone berzerk. It doesn't false
> positive
> >anything and the non-high ascii portions are working correctly but I
> >cant figure out how sa is interpreting this for the life of me.
> >
> > > >
>
