http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4558
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-27 16:13 -------
Subject: Re: oscommerce ships with an open redirector
> In response to Comment #6:
> {5,60}
> This fails in a valid (though rare) case like "x.us". quinlan in IRC
suggested
> that {4,255} would be correct.
Considered at the time I wrote it, but I considered it unlikely enough to
not be a concern. Note I did start the other pattern at 4. {4,255} would
be correct, but I get a little nervous with matches that long.
> Wouldn't this fail in the case of something like
> http://255longdomainname/somedir/redirect.php ?
Yep. I was basing the assumption on the idea that these were perverted
"real" redirectors, and that real redirectors would perhaps usually have
rational top-level name lengths.
> Shouldn't this match https too?
> /^https?/
Haven't a clue. The two examples didn't use https so I didn't include it.
Can't see a reason not to put it in though.
> Why "60"? Is that an arbitrary number or was it chosen for some reason?
Arbitrary, based on typical length of real domain names, and the usual
concerns on long pattern matches that can potentially backtrack.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
