Hello martin, Sunday, June 12, 2005, 4:58:35 AM, you wrote:
ms> Has the behaviour of the uri rule been changed at some point to match the ms> whole of the URL? I have just noticed I am getting some FP when one of my ms> uri rules matches against the URL rather than URI. Not that I'm aware of. To my knowledge the URI rule always matches the full URL. There are several SA and/or SARe rules which depend upon this. Or do you mean something different by URI and URL than I do. I generally use the definitions found at http://www.adp-gmbh.ch/web/uri_url_urn.html -- including: > URI = Uniform Resource Identifier > There are two types of URIs: URLs and URNs In other words, a URL /is/ a URI. Section 1.3 of http://www.zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC2396/Output/ gives as examples of URIs: > http://www.math.uio.no/faq/compression-faq/part1.html > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (those are the two most applicable to SA) > ftp://ftp.is.co.za/rfc/rfc1808.txt etc. ms> To prevent FP would be very difficult, I think to match the whole of the URL ms> with uri rules is not such a good thing, if you wanted to match something in ms> a URL it would be quite easy to do so in a body rule but to match just ms> against URI isn't so easy. Why? As recommended, if you have an avoidable FP in an SA distribution rule, post it to bugzilla, and we'll see if we can get rid of the FP. (Remember, however, that sometimes ham-hits on low-scoring rules are intentionally -- an FP is one that flags a non-spam as a spam.) If your ham hit is in a SARE rule rather than an SA rule (more likely, IMO), then post the specifics either here or on the SARE forum, and we'll see if it's worth avoiding. Bob Menschel
