Hi,
> I'm used to a buffer being a __CHUNK (using your rule example) of
> > text, or the first 4k or so, not up to the first two line breaks, so I
> > was confused.
>
> You are confused, indeed. And confusing body for rawbody rules. So much
> for the pun. ;)
>
> The terms I were using are directl
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 23:36 -0400, Alex wrote:
> > > > A body rule with beginning and end anchors /^ $/ as you posted matches
> > > > complete paragraphs. Not the full body.
> > >
> > > I don't think I realized multiple buffers weren't considered
> > > simultaneously.
> >
> > I don't get "buffer",
Hi,
> > A body rule with beginning and end anchors /^ $/ as you posted matches
> > > complete paragraphs. Not the full body.
> >
> > I don't think I realized multiple buffers weren't considered
> > simultaneously.
>
> I don't get "buffer", neither "simultaneously" in this context.
>
I'm used to a
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 22:05 -0400, Alex wrote:
> This is the quoted-printable text/html content:
>
>
>
>
> #00">
> Hi! href=3D"http://example.ru/rnj/trouble.php";>http://example.ru/rnj/trouble.php
>
> where example.ru is the real domain (which is now a dead link anyway).
> The rendered v
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 21:55 -0400, Alex wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Oh, come on, Alex. We've had that topic just recently in your "Help with
> > short bodys with URLs" thread. Which wasn't the first time either...
>
> I know, I know. I actually started
Hi,
> > ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::BodyEval
> >if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::BodyEval::has_check_body_length)
>
> > body __BODY_LENGTH_100 eval:check_body_length('100')
>
> This indeed may be a neat substitution to the __RB_LE_nnn and __CHUNK
> rules discussed, to match short m
Hi,
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 14:16 -0400, Alex wrote:
> > I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly
> > containing any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI,
> > followed by any number of characters, up
On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 03:21 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> spamassassin --lint -D debug output will show weather that cf file and
Whether. *sigh* When did I unlearn that?
> the plugin are loaded. Running --lint without debug might be worthwhile
> on its own already.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 20:54 -0400, Art Werschulz wrote:
> > Your SA installation seems to be broken. That's stock code:
> >
> > $ grep -rl check_https_http_mismatch .
> > Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/HTTPSMismatch.pm
>
> I have the same thing:
>
> $ pwd
> /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Sp
On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 00:12 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 05/28/2014 11:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Another approach would be to actually ensure there is only a single
> > chunk. And finally, meta them together.
> >
> >rawbody __CHUNK /^./
> >tflags __CHUNK multiple
> or a "modern"
On 05/28/2014 11:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Another approach would be to actually ensure there is only a single
chunk. And finally, meta them together.
rawbody __CHUNK /^./
tflags __CHUNK multiple
metaSHORT_BODY_URI __SHORT_BODY_URI && (__CHUNK == 1)
That all said,
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 14:16 -0400, Alex wrote:
> I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly
> containing any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI,
> followed by any number of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed
> miserably, and hoped someone could help.
>
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
body __ORCAMENTO_B /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
...is redundant. The subject text is included in body rules.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.im
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2014 10:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
John> The only place I've found backreferences useful is when writing a
John> header rule that is looking for the same string in multiple
John> headers.
John> Other than that, captures are ve
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Arthur Glennie wrote:
[quote]
I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly
containing any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI,
followed by any number of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed
miserably, and hoped someone could help.
On 05/28/2014 11:16 AM, Alex wrote (syntax highlighting added):
> I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly
> containing any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI,
> followed by any number of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed
> miserably, and hoped someon
On Wed, 28 May 2014 10:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
John> The only place I've found backreferences useful is when writing a
John> header rule that is looking for the same string in multiple
John> headers.
John> Other than that, captures are very rare.
There was a pattern in the recent c
[quote]
I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly containing any
number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI, followed by any number of
characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed miserably, and hoped someone could
help.
[/quote]
This should work for you:
BodyLOC
On May 28, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Joe Quinn wrote:
>
> It could be worth discussing again. Perhaps you could write a proof of
> concept and see what other use cases it has?
In prior discussions, I think I mentioned it would be useful for spam
templates... some templates embed a hash string in mult
[quote]
I believe it has been discussed before, specifically regarding the
__TO_IN_SUBJ rule in 70_sandbox.cf
It could be worth discussing again. Perhaps you could write a proof of
concept and see what other use cases it has?
[/quote]
Thanks, I was not aware it had already been discussed. I can inv
Hi,
I'm trying to write a body rule that will catch an email exactly containing
any number of characters up to 15, followed by a URI, followed by any
number of characters, up to 15. My attempt has failed miserably, and hoped
someone could help.
body LOC_SHORT_BODY_URI m{^.{0,15}(https?://.
On 5/28/2014 2:10 PM, Arthur Glennie wrote:
[quote]
The only place I've found backreferences useful is when writing a header
rule that is looking for the same string in multiple headers.
Other than that, captures are very rare.
If SA had a way to capture a match from rule1 and use that in rule2 y
[quote]
The only place I've found backreferences useful is when writing a header
rule that is looking for the same string in multiple headers.
Other than that, captures are very rare.
If SA had a way to capture a match from rule1 and use that in rule2 you
might see more of that.
[/quote]
So it can
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Arthur Glennie wrote:
Specific to spamassassin, are capture groups ever useful, or should I
always use non-capture groups?
Eg. (lit) vs. (?:lit)
The only place I've found backreferences useful is when writing a header
rule that is looking for the same string in multiple h
On 5/28/2014 12:44 PM, Arthur Glennie wrote:
Specific to spamassassin, are capture groups ever useful, or should I
always use non-capture groups?
Eg. (lit) vs. (?:lit)
This is not specific to SA, but the same in any regular expression. If
you need to reference the captured string later, use a
On 5/28/2014 12:46 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 5/28/2014 12:44 PM, Arthur Glennie wrote:
Specific to spamassassin, are capture groups ever useful, or should I
always use non-capture groups?
Eg. (lit) vs. (?:lit)
I believe ?: will always be ever so slightly more efficient.
He's asking if the
On 5/28/2014 12:44 PM, Arthur Glennie wrote:
Specific to spamassassin, are capture groups ever useful, or should I
always use non-capture groups?
Eg. (lit) vs. (?:lit)
I believe ?: will always be ever so slightly more efficient.
Specific to spamassassin, are capture groups ever useful, or should I
always use non-capture groups?
Eg. (lit) vs. (?:lit)
On 5/28/2014 11:14 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 10:19 -0300, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
body __ORCAMENTO_B /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
uri __ORCAMENTO_U
/orcamento\.php|/orcamento\.pdf|planilha\
In fact, there was this error, even after fixing it still didn't work.
I believe that the problem was occurring because the message had a HMTL
attached and in turn had a link to the file. I decided to change and do
as follows:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
bod
On 5/28/2014 9:19 AM, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Hi
I need a rule to block spam contains
Subject or Body contains words 'or.*amento' or 'planilha' or 'urgente'
AND URI contains links to orcamento or panilha (php or pdf)
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgent
Hi
I need a rule to block spam contains
Subject or Body contains words 'or.*amento' or 'planilha' or 'urgente'
AND URI contains links to orcamento or panilha (php or pdf)
So, I doing this:
header __ORCAMENTO_H Subject =~ /or.*amento|planilha|urgente/i
body __ORCAMENTO_B /or.*amento|planilha|u
32 matches
Mail list logo
