https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #3 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> --- (In reply to John Hardin from comment #2) > (In reply to Mark Martinec from comment #1) > > The formal syntax does not allow whitespace there: > > As has been said before, SA is not an RFC compliance audit tool; there's > also Postel's Principle. > > > Should be fixed & unified (and relaxed with allowed space around a '=' ). > > Agreed, especially if it allows trivial bypass of SA rules. > > I'm wondering if deviance from the RFC should be captured as a potential > scoreable spam sign. I'd never heard of Postel's Principle but I love it. It formalizes a lot of my own thoughts and experience on a variety of computer-related issues. With that said though, I'm +1 to change Content Type parsing to match Content Disposition and allow spaces. I'm also +1 to flag it in code and write an eval rule to see if it's a spam indicator. I can run a grep on my ham and spam corpora if someone has a moment to write the syntax out as I'm bouncing around on tickets. KAM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
