-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Eric A. Hall writes: > On 3/9/2005 1:38 PM, Eric A. Hall wrote: > > > I think the four affected rules are RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH, > > RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP, RCVD_BY_IP > > Extending the problem report--it seems that these rules don't fire in some > instances. I haven't really checked this out yet, but addresses with a > leading octet of 111, 123, and some others at or below ~130 seem to get > skipped entirely (so does 99 and a few other two-digit numbers). That certainly sounds like a bug. > Further, > in keeping with the notion that all-numeric is illegal, high-numbered > decimals (eg, 789) don't trip the RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO rule either. > Let me know what you the plan is on this as I can add these kinds of tests > to my private set, but would rather not if they'll be in the core set. I'd recommend opening those as 2 bugs in our BZ, and if there's bugs in existing rules based on what they should be doing, we can fix them; or if there's additional rules that catch *other* cases that aren't matching what we should already be catching, we can add new ones. putting them in the bz means we can use the nifty auto-mass-check functionality to get them quickly tested on the large, 5-person, nightly-mass-check corpora. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCMgJWMJF5cimLx9ARAqVWAJ9HrHw5Nl1lk9YHx5rB3NxW/2+LigCgomLH YVgQ0SAdr2C0Ws9A4xU+JXk= =9zrX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
