doc. question - body/raw_body and multiparts?

[Gary Funck <ga...@intrepid.com>]

The current documentation states:

body SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAME /pattern/modifiers

Define a body pattern test. pattern is a Perl regular expression.
The 'body' in this case is the textual parts of the message body; any
non-text MIME parts are stripped, and the message decoded from
Quoted-Printable or Base-64-encoded format if necessary. The message Subject
header is considered part of the body and becomes the first paragraph when
running the rules. All HTML tags and line breaks will be removed before
matching.

rawbody SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAME /pattern/modifiers

Define a raw-body pattern test. pattern is a Perl regular expression.
The 'raw body' of a message is the text, including all textual parts. The
text will be decoded from base64 or quoted-printable encoding, but HTML tags
and line breaks will still be present.

-----

For the purposes of these tests how is "textual parts" defined? For example,
in a multipart/alternative, would the tests be run both on the text part and
the html part? Which MIME types are classified as text?  Just for clarity,
if someone attaches a text file, that is not considered to be a "textual
part"?

RE: doc. question - body/raw_body and multiparts?

[Gary Funck <ga...@intrepid.com>]

To further motivate the discussion, I'm attaching an e-mail that Fred just
sent to the RulesEmporium list. The message has a multipart attachment with
text/plain and two text/html parts, although the second html part is a file
attachment. Not sure what the spammer had in mind there.

How would SA's "body" and "rawbody" rules apply here?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Funck [mailto:gary@intrepid.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:35 AM
[...]
>
> For the purposes of these tests how is "textual parts" defined?
> For example,
> in a multipart/alternative, would the tests be run both on the
> text part and
> the html part? Which MIME types are classified as text?  Just for clarity,
> if someone attaches a text file, that is not considered to be a "textual
> part"?
>
>
>