DecodeShortURI problems

Hi! I recently checked the performance of the DecodeShortURI Plugin an noticed some oddities: *) snip.ly seems to need url_shortener_get *) fb.me always responds with 200 even with GET and User-Agent set *) t.co seems to respond with 200 if User-Agent is a "valid" Browser, but with 30x

Re: inline image scanning?

On 20/02/2023 16:30, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > and looks like it works. > > ...one just needs to have tesseract installed. And you are absolutely sure that it gets called for INLINE images embedded in URIs? I know how to configure Extracttext and it works for image attachments.

inline image scanning?

Hi! Is there a way with SA4 to process inline images (SRC=data;image/...) as images (like attachments)? eg. to feed them to ExtractText. I see that SA tries to call URI canonicalization, but that's it so far? Greetings, Wolfgang

Re: urinsrhsbl not trimmed

On 06/12/2022 15:33, Henrik K wrote: > I would just create a bug, preferably with tested examples of all variants. > :-) Most than likely there has been some oversights with legacy code and > notrim addition, *nsrhs* isn't even used in stock rules. Hmmm, while writing the bugreport and digging

urinsrhsbl not trimmed

Hi! I'm using SA 4 trunk and tried the urinsrhsbl. Not sure if this is a bug or abuse on my side. I already have two RBLs... one uribl.example.at and one uriblfull.example.at The first does not use "tflags notrim", the second does. Now I added a lookup for uribl.example.at like urinsrhssub

spamassassin sometimes suddenly ends scanning

autolearn=unavailable version=4.0.0-r1904221 ... and the rest of the email. It doesn't finish any other rules and doesn't display final results at all. And then I start it simply again and everything is fine. Has anybody else seen this odd behavior? Greetings, Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Breyha | https:/

SA4rc3: no URL makes uridnsbl rules "unrun"

Hi! If a scanned E-Mail does not contain any URL (URIHOSTS and URIDOMAINS empty) SA4(rc3) does not mark rules using check_uridnsbl as "run" IMO. This makes meta rules depending on them "unrunable" as well. Dbg Output from an example: Oct 14 11:51:01.140 [3032346] dbg: check: tagrun - tag

Re: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* "unrun" (was: SA 4.0.0-rc3 meta rule results "undefined")

On 11/10/2022 15:08, Henrik K wrote: This is because __RCVD_IN_DNSWL is not supposed to be a meta. KAM channel overrides it to "disable" the rule. I just posted on the list about that.. Oh, right! Thanks for the pointer. Didn't catch up to this point yet. Greetings, Wolfgang

RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* "unrun" (was: SA 4.0.0-rc3 meta rule results "undefined")

On 11/10/2022 13:29, Henrik K wrote: You can also need to use -D rules,rules-all to see any "unrun" rules. I tried that using "all,rules,rules-all" and I think I found an other problem with RCVD_IN_DNSWL* rules. If I run with a testmail I see: # spamassassin -D all,rules,rules-all &1|grep

Re: SA 4.0.0-rc3 meta rule results "undefined"

On 11/10/2022 13:29, Henrik K wrote: Would need exact sample of ruleset, this is too vague to work on. What are all the __SUBMETAs? Would it be ok to send you my ruleset with test.eml offlist? I do not want to send them here publicly or to bugzilla, because they contain a lot of local

Re: SA 4.0.0-rc3 meta rule results "undefined"

On 11/10/2022 13:22, Henrik K wrote: Remains unclear if you applied the patch from https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8059 ? I applied both on rc3 via .spec: + echo 'Patch #1 (SA4rc3_uridnsbl.patch):' Patch #1 (SA4rc3_uridnsbl.patch): + /usr/bin/patch --no-backup-if-mismatch

Re: SA 4.0.0-rc3 meta rule results "undefined"

==> got hit (8) I have meta __META_NO (__SUBMETAZ || . || _SUBMETAZN ) which is not hit. And finally meta RESULT ((! __META_NO) && __META1 > 1 && __META2 > 6) score RESULT 3 And RESULT is not hit/evaluated. There is something really odd going on with

Re: SA 4.0.0-rc3 meta rule results "undefined"

On 11/10/2022 06:59, Henrik K wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:50:38AM +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote: And another quite simple ruleset... meta __SA4TA3_1 6 meta __SA4TA3_2 2 meta __SA4TA3(__SA4TA3_1 > 2) && (__SA4TA3_2 > 1) doesn't set __SA4TA3. This was working an SA3.4 as

SA 4.0.0-rc3 meta rule results "undefined"

not be an issue. But I also see no reason why a meta rule that does not exclusively depend on "net" sub rules should inherit this flag? Currently it is propagated if a single sub rule has the flag. Not a big issue on my side since I do not plan to use SA without net rules. Greetings, Wolfgang Breyha -- Wolfgang Breyha | https://www.blafasel.at/ Vienna University Computer Center | Austria

Re: uribl result not triggering meta rule

On 02/04/2021 13:46, Wolfgang Breyha wrote: Hi! It seems that 3.4.5 changed the behavior of URIBL lookups in a quite bad way compared to 3.4.4. Just as a pointer: https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7897 Greetings, Wolfgang

uribl result not triggering meta rule

as well. But if I use a meta rule like: meta DENYTEST( URIBL_DENY || ) I see the rule triggering on 3.4.4 but not on 3.4.5 anymore. I tested this on RHEL6 with 3.4.4, RHEL8 3.4.4 and 3.4.5, RHEL7 3.4.5. Is this a know bug? Greetings, Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Breyha

Re: sa-compile Problem

Klaus Heinz wrote: Wolfgang Breyha wrote: But after restarting spamd I get lots of message complaining about missing body_400.pm up to body_1000.pm and same for body_neg400.pm to body_neg1000.pm. ^^^ Are you sure about this one? I have not seen this yet. Correct! The complete

sa-compile Problem

a requirement, or is 0.12.0 ok, too? Regards, Wolfgang Breyha -- Wolfgang Breyha [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.blafasel.at/ Vienna University Computer Center | Austria

escaping: must have lost requests

Veränderung bewahren.\ / Richard Löwenthalhttp://www.blafasel.at \ \Wolfgang Breyha [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ System Engineering UTA - Vienna - Austria /