Re: RFC: small procmailrc.example change

"Malte S. Stretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think about if its a good idea to apply the attached patch to the > procmailrc.example. That's what I usually use. Normally I'd just take > this as trivial documentation stuff but as that file is our official > filtering guideline, I'd like to

RFC: small procmailrc.example change

I think about if its a good idea to apply the attached patch to the procmailrc.example. That's what I usually use. Normally I'd just take this as trivial documentation stuff but as that file is our official filtering guideline, I'd like to know what you think. The change has the advantages th

Re: [Bug 3753] -H should have long name

> Sorry, I didn't even see that it was you who filed/forwarded the bug -- I > just > knew that there's already such a long name because I always thought the name > sucks :~) Not a big deal, its a trivial fix :-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature

[Bug 3753] -H should have long name

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-06 12:00 --- Sorry, I didn't even see that it was you who filed/forwarded the bug -- I just knew that there's already such a long name because I always thought the name sucks

[Bug 3753] -H should have long name

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-06 11:28 --- Subject: Re: -H should have long name > Ah, I see. It was missing in the SYNOPSIS. Added in r43421. Argh... I was just preparing a patch. :-) --- You

[Bug 3753] -H should have long name

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-06 11:23 --- Subject: Re: -H should have long name > >From 3.0's man page: > | -H directory, --helper-home-dir=directory My mistake. The problem then is that it's not list

[Bug 3753] -H should have long name

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-06 11:18 --- Ah, I see. It was missing in the SYNOPSIS. Added in r43421. --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are wat

[Bug 3753] -H should have long name

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3753 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 3755] New: Add configuration setting: use_language

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3755 Summary: Add configuration setting: use_language Product: Spamassassin Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version) Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhanc

[Bug 3754] New: sa-learn: successful return code though file not found

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3754 Summary: sa-learn: successful return code though file not found Product: Spamassassin Version: unspecified Platform: Other URL: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugrep

[Bug 3753] -H should have long name

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3753 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |trivial Target Milestone|Future

[Bug 3753] New: -H should have long name

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3753 Summary: -H should have long name Product: Spamassassin Version: unspecified Platform: Other URL: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265523&repeatmerge

[Bug 3010] Implement base anti-worm plugin ...

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||3752 nThis|

[Bug 3752] MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE rule does not flag recent virus

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3752 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||3010 --- You are receiving

[Bug 3752] MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE rule does not flag recent virus

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3752 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 3752] MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE rule does not flag recent virus

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3752 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-06 05:43 --- Created an attachment (id=2321) --> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2321&action=view) Fixes regex in _check_attachments() of EvalTests.pm

[Bug 3752] New: MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE rule does not flag recent virus

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3752 Summary: MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE rule does not flag recent virus Product: Spamassassin Version: 2.64 Platform: All OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Pr

[Bug 3751] [review] content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3751 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-05 21:10 --- +1 so far I don't see any issues with the patch, except that t/mimeparse checks t/data/spam/badmime2.txt, which is a spam with a blank boundary. If we actively

[Bug 3751] [review] content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #2318 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Bug 3675] [review] pick a project logo

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3675 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-05 18:19 --- 1 - Colour Scheme: Hot. Definitely. Although, I would prefer 4.0 to 4.3 -- I like the different colour messages. It also makes us look better -- we can determine t

[Bug 3749] [review] message parser skips blank/invalid(?) parts

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3749 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|message parser skips|[review] message parser

[Bug 3749] message parser skips blank/invalid(?) parts

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3749 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #2315 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Bug 3749] message parser skips blank/invalid(?) parts

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3749 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-05 18:05 --- Subject: Re: message parser skips blank/invalid(?) parts On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > aha! the extra node thing is cause

[Bug 3751] [review] content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3751 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-05 17:58 --- just to note, at least mutt and Outlook Express parse the malformed boundary out. --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list f

[Bug 3751] [review] content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|content-type header parsing |[review] content-type header

[Bug 3751] content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3751 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-05 17:09 --- Created an attachment (id=2318) --> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2318&action=view) suggested patch this patch adds in optional whitespace

[Bug 3751] content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|Future |3.0.0 --- You are receivin

[Bug 3751] New: content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3751 Summary: content-type header parsing doesn't catch malformed boundaries Product: Spamassassin Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version) Platform: Other OS/Version: other