Bug 6398 - SUBJ_ALL_CAPS matches arabic letters in subject when replied
Summary: SUBJ_ALL_CAPS matches arabic letters in subject when replied
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 5859
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Libraries (show other bugs)
Version: 3.3.1
Hardware: All All
: P5 normal
Target Milestone: 3.3.2
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-03-31 14:27 UTC by luther.blissett
Modified: 2010-03-31 14:53 UTC (History)
1 user (show)


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Mailheader example text/plain None luther.blissett@gmx.net [NoCLA]
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 luther.blissett 2010-03-31 14:27:16 UTC 
Created attachment 4729 [details]
Mailheader example

Hi

When sending a mail with arabic subject (e.g.  بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم), a reply or forward causes the SUBJ_ALL_CAPS pattern to match (e.g. "AW: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم" or "FWD: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم").

This might also be the case for other languages (e.g. Hindi, Thai, etc.)

Kindest regards,
Luther
Comment 1 John Wilcock 2010-03-31 14:41:23 UTC 
Looks like a duplicate of bug 5859...
Comment 2 Mark Martinec 2010-03-31 14:49:25 UTC 
> When sending a mail with arabic subject (e.g.  بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم), a reply
> or forward causes the SUBJ_ALL_CAPS pattern to match (e.g. "AW: بسم الله الرحمن
> الرحيم" or "FWD: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم").
> This might also be the case for other languages (e.g. Hindi, Thai, etc.)

Here is the attached header field sample:

  Subject: =?utf-8?Q?AW:_=D8=A7=D9=84=D9=84=D9=87_=D9=83=D8=A8=D8=B1?=

Should the CHARSETS_LIKELY_TO_FP_AS_CAPS in Constants.pm include 'utf-8'?

Shouldn't the "=hh" entities be exempt from QP encoded strings entirely?

Also, shouldn't the B-encoded (base64) MIME strings be exempt entirely
from this test?
Comment 3 Mark Martinec 2010-03-31 14:53:28 UTC 
> Looks like a duplicate of bug 5859...

Indeed. Marking as such.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 5859 ***