https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6143
--- Comment #38 from Justin Mason <[email protected]> 2009-07-13 04:45:35 PST --- (In reply to comment #37) > Created an attachment (id=4483) --> (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4483) [details] > patch to fixup re before checking length is greater than minimum > > This patch moves fixup_re to BodyRuleBaseExtractor.pm and uses it there before > checking for minimum length. > > I would like an opinion about the aesthetics. We can either 1) call fixup_re > in > both sa-compile and BodyRuleBaseExtractor, which makes its use in sa-compile > look ugly because it needs to be qualified by the package, or 2) duplicate the > check for minimum length in both places knowing that the one in > BodyRuleBaseExtractor is going to be wrong sometimes. > > Between the two, choice #2 seems messier to me. The attached patch implements > #1. ok, got time to review this, and +1. (it'd be nice to call those fixup_re tests in the t/re_base_extraction.t test script too fwiw ;) > I still can't get any compiled rule to fire. I haven't looked for the specific > place that the xs form of the rules are called where I could insert debug > info, > but the standard -D output doesn't seem to show anything. I have tested both > lossy and non-lossy compiled rules. let me see if I can come up with a demo of this working.... -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
