On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:34:27 -0700
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On October 20, 2015 11:39:36 AM PDT, Amir Caspi <ceph...@3phase.com>
> wrote:
> >On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:16 PM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> body URI_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST eval:check_uri_host_in_blacklist()
> >> header HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST eval:check_uri_host_listed('BLACK')
> >>
> >> These appear to be the same thing. The first call is just a
> >> shorthand form for the second. I don't see where headers come into
> >> it. I think
> >the
> >> second rule is probably just a mistake.
> >
> >So, following up on this... do any of the main devs see the second
> >rule as a problem? It seems to be that a header rule shouldn't be
> >checking URI hosts, but even if so, it absolutely shouldn't be
> >hitting when those hosts aren't even in the headers (per the two
> >spamples I posted).
> I want to run the samples you provided and see if I can duplicate the
> issue but it definitely sounds odd. Regards,
> KAM
See
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7256
If you look at the code it's fairly obvious that they are the same
rule. check_uri_host_in_blacklist() just passes BLACK to
check_uri_host_listed().
All the work is done in the first invocation of
check_uri_host_listed(); and the cached matches are only indexed by the
list name (BLACK) without any header/body distinction.
From a cursory look at _check_uri_host_listed() it appears to be
doing what the name implies - it checks URIs.
