Bug 3830 - [review] another pattern for return paths in Received: headers
Summary: [review] another pattern for return paths in Received: headers
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Rules (Eval Tests) (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0.0
Hardware: Other other
: P5 normal
Target Milestone: 3.0.1
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-09-27 08:30 UTC by Tony Finch
Modified: 2004-10-03 15:19 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
patch to improve the regex patch None Tony Finch [HasCLA]
example message text/plain None Tony Finch [HasCLA]
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tony Finch 2004-09-27 08:30:24 UTC 
Some systems put the return path (envelope from, envelope sender) in the
Received: header marked with the label return-path
Comment 1 Tony Finch 2004-09-27 08:33:06 UTC 
Created attachment 2373 [details]
patch to improve the regex
Comment 2 Malte S. Stretz 2004-09-27 08:35:19 UTC 
Could you please attach a sample mail if possible?
Comment 3 Tony Finch 2004-09-27 08:42:13 UTC 
Created attachment 2374 [details]
example message
Comment 4 Justin Mason 2004-09-27 16:27:51 UTC 
easy, and useful. thanks Tony!  aiming at 3.0.1
Comment 5 Malte S. Stretz 2004-09-29 15:49:02 UTC 
+1 on the idea, just why is there the /:?/ part in the RE?
Comment 6 Justin Mason 2004-09-29 16:00:17 UTC 
Tony, good question.  are there cases where it appears as "return-path:<foo>"?
Comment 7 Tony Finch 2004-09-30 00:27:59 UTC 
The :? is speculative, in case someone decides to make the return-path item look like the header it is 
based on. I haven't seen this in the wild.
Comment 8 Justin Mason 2004-10-02 13:07:56 UTC 
+1 anyway
Comment 9 Theo Van Dinter 2004-10-03 19:10:51 UTC 
+1
Comment 10 Justin Mason 2004-10-03 23:19:11 UTC 
ok, applied!