M>Not that I'm aware of. To my knowledge the URI rule always M>matches the full URL. There are several SA and/or SARe rules M>which depend upon this. M> M>Or do you mean something different by URI and URL than I do. M>I generally use the definitions found at M>http://www.adp-gmbh.ch/web/uri_url_urn.html -- including: M>> URI = Uniform Resource Identifier M>> There are two types of URIs: URLs and URNs M>In other words, a URL /is/ a URI. M> M>Section 1.3 of http://www.zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC2396/Output/ M>gives as examples of URIs: M>> http://www.math.uio.no/faq/compression-faq/part1.html M>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] M>(those are the two most applicable to SA) M>> ftp://ftp.is.co.za/rfc/rfc1808.txt M>etc. M> M> M>Why? As recommended, if you have an avoidable FP in an SA M>distribution rule, post it to bugzilla, and we'll see if we M>can get rid of the FP. (Remember, however, that sometimes M>ham-hits on low-scoring rules are intentionally -- an FP is M>one that flags a non-spam as a spam.) M> M>If your ham hit is in a SARE rule rather than an SA rule M>(more likely, IMO), then post the specifics either here or on M>the SARE forum, and we'll see if it's worth avoiding. M> M>Bob Menschel M>
Thanks for the reply Bob, it's a rule of my own, and yes I was using the same definition of URL and URI, I just didn't notice any FP when I first wrote it but wasn't sure if the uri rule behaviour had changed, since its not a url rule that is. Martin
