https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7992
John Hardin <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #18 from John Hardin <[email protected]> --- I like the syntax, too. (In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #16) > If a regex rule depends on a tag %{FOO} and no match is found for it, should > we consider it as unrun? I guess so. Doesn't make much sense to try matching > the literal value anyway. There are no %{MUMBLE} rules in the base ruleset but if anyone defined some locally for some reason they'd stop working as expected. Perhaps a check for that match name being defined, and if no rule was defined to capture that name then treat it as a literal? Do we need/want to lint for that? "Rule X contains '%{MUMBLE}' but no rule captures tag MUMBLE"? Seems a good idea. What is the recommended CAN() test for this so we can guard rules using the new syntax from bothering old code? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
