On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:11:03 -0500 David Jones wrote: > On 09/19/2017 07:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > Is it purposeful extra space though that might indicate spaminess? > > Spample? Regards, > > KAM > > > > On September 19, 2017 8:13:09 AM EDT, RW > > <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:27:13 +0100 > > Sebastian Arcus wrote: > > > > I've had a number of emails with no subject not triggering > > the MISSING_SUBJECT rule - only to discover that the spammers have > > added a white space after 'Subject:' - which appears to fool the > > code into > > thinking that there is an actual subject. Would it be > > possible to 'smarten up' the code a bit to recognise this? > > > > > > The space doesn't make a difference. > > > > The test is for a missing subject not an empty subject. Some > > people send emails without setting a subject but the client will > > normally still add the header. > > > > I have had these in place for years. Maybe Kevin can consolidate and > integrate this into his KAM.cf so I could remove them or we could > eventually get them into the default SA ruleset after some testing. > > header ENA_SUBJ_IS_SPACE Subject =~ /^ $/
The OP said there was a space after 'Subject:', so that rule wouldn't detect it.
