On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Axb wrote:
On 3/25/19 7:01 PM, Henrik K wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 06:49:49PM +0100, Tobi <jahli...@gmx.ch> wrote:
Am 25.03.19 um 15:18 schrieb Henrik K:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 03:00:30PM +0100, Tobi <jahli...@gmx.ch> wrote:
[snip..]
uri __HAS_URI /./
tflags __HAS_URI multiple
meta __REALLY_HAS_URI (DKIM_SIGNED && __HAS_URI > 1) || (!DKIM_SIGNED &&
__HAS_URI)
seems to me everybody is making an effort in disregarding the fact that the
URI rule was hitting on a header and imo, that should not happen.
This makes the whole uri behaviour even more unpredictable.
However sometimes headers contain valuable URI targets.
For example, I've seen increasing amounts of spam which contain cloud based URLs
in the body of the message (worthless for URIBL filtering) which may also
contain URLs in the headers that are specific to the spammer source (thus
viable targets for URIBL filters).
A blanket prohibition against header URI mining would miss out on that data.
--
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{
