|-----Original Message----- |From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: 05 March 2005 01:27 |To: SpamAssassin Users |Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] SURBL missing this spam | |On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:23:35PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote: |> Given that it's apparently fixed in 3.1 should we make a bugzilla? |> Might it be worth reviewing that the expression or code was |> specifically fixed to explain this (better) behavior? |> Or would that be unnecessary? | |I wouldn't bother with a ticket. We're trying to get 3.1 out |as opposed to a 3.0.3. I also don't know if the issue is |simple to fix in 3.0 or not. 3.1 has had a lot of work done |to it since 3.0. ;) | Is there a uri rule we could use to catch e.g. .com: or .uk: in the mean time untill 3.1 becomes available, there is a posibility other spammers may try using this technique to exploit the bug.
I tried uri BadPort_URL /.???:|.??:/ but was an invalid regexp, I have never tried to write any rules before so havent a clue of the allowed formats, sure its quite simple to those that do. I also put this one in but like someone else said this will probably now be defunct; uri Crazy_URL /crazyrxl0wprices.com:/ score Crazy_URL 10 Martin
