back where I was: why is this rule misfiring?

2005-03-23 Thread Vicki Brown 
What is going on here?

The rule
 header CF_NOT_FOR_METoCc !~
/(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])\.com/i
 score CF_NOT_FOR_ME 0.01
 describe CF_NOT_FOR_ME  Neither To nor Cc me

The mail
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de
[212.227.126.177])
by cfcl.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j2MNxFnu051106
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:59:16 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
...
From: Marcel Bresink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TinkerTool System Feedback
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:56:43 +0100
To: Vicki Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The SA Report
 X-Spam-Flag: YES
 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on cfcl.com
 X-Spam-Level: *
 X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=1.0 required=0.5 tests=CF_NOT_FOR_ME
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2
 X-Spam-Report:
*  1.0 CF_NOT_FOR_ME Neither To nor Cc me

The mail is To: Vicki Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The test should not trigger

Required disclaimer:
  Yes, I ran spamassassin --lint
  Yes I hupped spamd recently (I shouldn't need to; this is a user rule)
  Yes we allow user rules (yes we trust our users :)


Last time someone suggested that my M[TU]A might add a To: line if it was
missing. Even if that was occurring, I doubt it would add my full name as
well

Besides which, according to my procmail logs, my address _was_ in the To:
header well before the mail was piped into spamc.

procmail: [47355] Tue Mar 22 15:38:13 2005
...
procmail: Executing formail,-zxFrom:,-zxReply-To:
procmail: Assigning SENTFROM=Marcel Bresink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
procmail: Executing formail,-zxTo:,-zxCc:
procmail: Assigning SENTTO=Vicki Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]


So why does spamd say that
  Vicki Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL 
PROTECTED])\.com/i

I ran this through vanilla Perl and
  Vicki Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] =~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL 
PROTECTED])\.com/i
-- 
Vicki Brown  ZZZ
Journeyman Sourceror:  zz  |\ _,,,---,,_ Code, Docs, Process,
Scripts  Philtres  zz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_   Perl, WWW, Mac OS X
http://cfcl.com/vlb   |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'   SF Bay Area, CA  USA
___  '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)  ___

Re: back where I was: why is this rule misfiring?

2005-03-23 Thread alan premselaar 
Vicki Brown wrote:
What is going on here?
The rule
 header CF_NOT_FOR_METoCc !~
/(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])\.com/i
 score CF_NOT_FOR_ME 0.01
 describe CF_NOT_FOR_ME  Neither To nor Cc me
Vicki,
 You're using a negated OR test, you want to use a negated AND test.
so, you're saying if the mail isn't for vlb[at]cfcl OR the mail isn't 
for vicki.vlb[at]gmail then it's not for me

in this situation, if one of the tests is true, the other one is false 
and thus the entire test is true. because one of the criteria passes the 
!~ test.

This is why you're not seeing the expected results.
[...snip...]
hope this helps,
alan

Re: back where I was: why is this rule misfiring?

2005-03-23 Thread Loren Wilton 
 What is going on here?

Good question.

 So why does spamd say that
   Vicki Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL 
 PROTECTED])\.com/i

 I ran this through vanilla Perl and
   Vicki Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] =~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL 
 PROTECTED])\.com/i

I ran both versions thru plain perl from the command line too.  And I get
exactly opposite results if I either escape the first @ sign, or don't
escape the second one.

Being the paronoid type, and knowing that =~ expressions work in ways I
understand, I'd do a

header __TO_ME ToCc =~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])\.com/i
meta NOT_TO_ME!__TO_ME

Loren