http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5780
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-18 08:32 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > (in reply to comment #12) > > In comment #2 I list exactly what OE 6 amd Thunderbird linkify. I agree that > we > should do the full processing including WEIRD_PORT on any URL that OE > linkifies. > What I'm proposing would affect only non-linkified strings. It does create a > hole if we want to do more with > > type this in your browser: foo.com/bar/baz > > than just an RBL check on foo.com. If there is some rule that we really want > to > have see foo.com/bar/baz in that specific case, then what I'm proposing will > not > handle it. Is there such a rule? ah, I see what you mean; I got that wrong, assuming that OE was linkifying the type this in your browser: foo.com case (which it doesn't). In that case, +1 to your suggestion at the end of comment 11. > I've got some more questions about the existing code for someone who knowns > more > about the original intentions. Is that you or Theo? The code that adds a > scheme > to the URI pushes both versions of the string, with and without the scheme, on > to the list. In your example, both "foo.com/bar/baz" and > "http://foo.com/bar/bax"; go on the list of URIs. Is that really what is > intended, or should it be only "http://foo.com/bar/baz";? Pushing both is what was intended. It's easier for rule writers that way. > Also, there are separate tests for URIs and email links, but the URI testing > section of the code also looks for an '@' and generates a mailto URI using a > somewhat different regexp than the branch of the code that is looking for mail > links. That results in two mailto URI strings being pushed on the list, > possibly > slightly different. Is that a bug? Yes, that may be. Go by the test cases ;) > I've got some proposed code changes but I want to resolve those issues first > before I finalize it. > > Another question is how to test changes. This would affect overall > performance. > I could use help in figuring out from nightly run results what has happened > once > we get to the point of being ready to test a change. ah, that side of things can be tricky. If you click on the "[+]" icon in the list of DateRevs on ruleqa.spamassassin.org, it'll give you start and end dates for mass-checks. that may help; but I've found in the past that just benchmarking a mass-check of 1000 messages is good enough. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
