https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7022
--- Comment #16 from John Hardin <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #13) > (In reply to AXB from comment #12) > > (In reply to John Hardin from comment #11) > > > (In reply to AXB from comment #10) > > > > 2.- normalized rules would require a tflag ? > > > > > > That's backwards. Running against the normalized text would be the > > > default, > > > you'd need a tflag to run against the non-normalized (raw) text. > > > > hmm.. that means that 90% of our rules would have the opt-out tflag when 90% > > of the spamflow is detected without normalizing anything? > > I must be missing something > > I agree with AXB. If you want to use the normalized text, the tflag would > be required so new rules can use the concept and not modify all the > pre-existing rules. I think I disagree. The point to normalization is to make rules work *better* in the face of varying accents and attempts to obfuscate text using accents. The existing rules shouldn't _need_ modification to take advantage of this, and they should work better against accent-obfuscated (or incorrectly-accented) text that currently defeats them. If this is in place they can be simplified to remove explicit alternations to allow for accents, though that shouldn't be necessary in lots of cases as the un-accented character is likely already part of the alternation. (The exception would be for things like umlauts that become two characters.) If an existing rule contains accents to match accented text, either to detect obfuscation or from pulling such text verbatim from samples, it would need to be updated or have the tflag applied. That's not the majority of rules, though, is it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
