Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One thing I'm not clear on is whether any tests look at intermediate > stages of decoding. That is, if a message has a base64'd HTML body, I > think "rawbody" sees the base64 and "body" sees the rendered content, > but nothing sees the un-rendered HTML. I'd be glad to learn I'm wrong > about that.
rawbody has been un-MIME-ed, but not rendered, so it can see raw HTML. It's generally better to use the HTML parser and renderer for this sort of thing, though, because regular expressions are not rich enough for many HTML tricks. > Yes, SA does this. The problem in this instance was that the message > contained <frame><noframes>garbage</noframes></frame> which (I suspect) > SA's HTML renderer reduces to "garbage" whereas (e.g.) IE's discards the > entire thing as nonsensical. Yeah, the SA renderer does the right thing -- the same thing as both links and Mozilla, but we'll fix it to do the same incorrect thing as IE (as we already do in several other cases). The suggestions to use links or Mozilla as a renderer instead of our own renderer are silly. See my other post on this thread. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, and open http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ source consulting (looking for new work) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
