http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5673
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-10 05:41 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> > > I would suggest to also change the get_header() to only unfold ...
>
> > no, this is by design -- for individual headers, it's important to unfold
> > the values for rule matching, and the ":raw" variant is offered to match
> > against the unmunged form.
>
> Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Unfold yes, munge whitespace no.
> Unfolding means to remove newlines before whitespace. The whitespace
> at the beginning of continuation lines is and integral part of the
> mail header field body, not part of a folding.
In terms of "unfolding", I refer to removing both the newline and the whitespace
at the beginning of continuation lines. In terms of how it interferes with
writing rules, that whitespace is a nuisance. Take this header:
Received: from radish.jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by radish.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0409E33287
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:30:15 +0100 (IST)
it could also be something like this:
Received: from some-long-hostname-breaking-folding.jmason.org (localhost
[127.0.0.1]) by radish.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
0409E33287 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:30:15 +0100
(IST)
This regexp
/\(localhost \[127.0.0.1\]\) by radish.jmason.org/
is easier for a rule developer to deal with than the alternative
/\(localhost\s+\[127.0.0.1\]\)\s+by\s+radish.jmason.org/
Again, this is by design, and IMO is still valuable behaviour.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
