On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:09:03PM +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote: > On 11/10/2022 12:23, Henrik K wrote: > > Should be fixed in rc4. > > > > https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8060 > > Well, this indeed fixes this test case. But my initial problem which I > though is described in this test case is not fixed yet:( > > So __SA4TA1 gets not evaluated neither in this ... > > header __SA4T_NOMATCH Subject =~ /dsfasjdhfkjshfjsdklfhaskf/ > > meta __SA4TA1 (((! __SA4T_NOMATCH) || __SPOOFED_URL) && URIBL_SBL ) > > meta __SA4TA2 (__SA4TA1 * 3 ) + 1 > > > > IMO __SA4TA2 should always be 1 or more (4). But in this case if URIBL_SBL > > is not hit it is undefined.
Remains unclear if you applied the patch from https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8059 ?
