Matt/Theo Yes it did come from the "other" wiki.
This raises the question of how can we learners tell what is no longer valid from the custom rule sets? Also are there any established processes for managing them? Thanks Alan > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 January 2004 21:13 > To: Alan Munday; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] FP on MY_HTTP_ODD_PORT > > > At 03:41 PM 1/15/2004, Alan Munday wrote: > >Just had the mail below trigger on: > > > > 2.0 MY_HTTP_ODD_PORT URI: Link to a server on > nonstandard port > > > >Why Vailresorts would want to go to the effort of declaring > port 80 in their > >link is a mystery. > > > >However it is clearly not a non-standard port. > > Note: when referencing add-on rules, be sure to mention where > they came from... > http://www.exit0.us/index.php/SaUriCustomRules?version=10 That said, it looks like MY_HTTP_ODD_PORT is 100% redundant anyway.. 2.6x ships with the rule WEIRD_PORT, which is better written... The standard weird_port rule ignores ports 80, 443 and 8080. and it doesn't score as high as 2.0. I'd suggest regarding MY_HTTP_ODD_PORT as both broken and obsoleted by the standard built-in ruleset. 20_uri_tests.cf:uri WEIRD_PORT m{https?://[^/\s]+?:\d+(?<!:80)(?<!:443)(?<!:8080)(?:/|\s|$)} 50_scores.cf:score WEIRD_PORT 1.345 1.944 0.554 1.407 ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
