On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:48, David Muir Sharnoff wrote: > As for URI's, I think it would be a mistake to include <img src=> > URIs as many of those point to innocent bystanders.
But if they are innocent bystanders you wouldn't have URI rules against them anyway, would you? > URIs should be HTML decoded. I've run into a number of spammers who > write things like: > > ht�x00054;p:// This is a good idea. So if you wanted to match an encoded URI, you would match on Full, otherwise, you could match against URI. > In terms of naming, "full" and "rawbody" don't have predictable meanings > without reading the documentation. (With 2.63 even with the documentation > they aren't predictable). > > I suggest that "full" and "rawbody" be deprecated in favor of: > "alltext" and "raw" or "rawmessage". In case it's not obvious, "alltext" > would replace "rawbody" and "raw" would replace "full". I agree. I was going to suggest some sort of naming change to have the parts be more descriptive, but then you would have to worry about ruleset backward-compatibility. I suppose that's not a big deal, if SA were to treat both the old and new names as the same. Maybe this would be a good change for 3.0? I would suggest something like: Full -> Raw (as this really is the 'raw' message) Rawbody -> Decoded or RawDecoded (if this were just like the 'raw' message, but with decoded parts) Body -> Text (just to make it more explicit that this is the text from the message)
