blacklist bug (2.63)

[Pete Hanson <wo...@well.com>]

If the From: header contains a punctuation character immediately 
prior to the @ character in the email address, the blacklist 
mechanism breaks down.  For example, assume the user has:

     blacklist_from *@world.std.com

If sent mail with a From address of something like:

     a?@world.std.com

the message won't be marked with USER_IN_BLACKLIST:

>>From phanson@well.com  Mon Mar 29 00:24:50 2004Return-Path: <ph...@well.com>
>Received: from smtp.well.com (smtp.well.com [206.14.209.7])    by 
>mail.well.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2T8OoXc014463
>     for <va...@mail.well.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:50 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from well.com (well.com [206.14.209.5])
>     by smtp.well.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2T8OoH1015357
>     for <va...@smtp.well.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:50 -0800 
>(PST)Received: (from phanson@localhost)
>     by well.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i2T8On0X027041
>     for vanilla; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:49 -0800 (PST)
>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:49 -0800 (PST)Message-Id: 
><20...@well.com>
>To: vanilla@well.com
>From: Keith Dawson <a?...@world.std.com>Subject: TBTF ping for 
>2001-04-20: Reviving
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-the_well_u (2004-01-11) on
>     user.well.com
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no
>     version=2.63-the_well_u
>X-Spam-Level:
>
>Blah

If the punctuation character is not the last character prior to the 
@, the blacklist mechanism appears to work:

>>From phanson@well.com  Mon Mar 29 00:24:40 2004
>Return-Path: <ph...@well.com>
>Received: from smtp.well.com (smtp.well.com [206.14.209.7])
>     by mail.well.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2T8Od7H014308
>     for <va...@mail.well.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:39 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from well.com (well.com [206.14.209.5])
>     by smtp.well.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2T8Odqf015264
>     for <va...@smtp.well.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:39 -0800 (PST)
>Received: (from phanson@localhost)
>     by well.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i2T8Ocju026790
>     for vanilla; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:38 -0800 (PST)
>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:24:38 -0800 (PST)
>Message-Id: <20...@well.com>
>To: vanilla@well.com
>From: Keith Dawson <?a...@world.std.com>
>Subject: (SPAM?) TBTF ping for 2001-04-20: Reviving
>X-Spam-Flag: YES
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-the_well_u (2004-01-11) on
>     user.well.com
>X-Spam-Report:
>     *  100 USER_IN_BLACKLIST From: address is in the user's black-list
>X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=100.0 required=5.0 tests=USER_IN_BLACKLIST
>     autolearn=no version=2.63-the_well_u
>X-Spam-Level: **************************************************
>
>Blah

The precise character used doesn't seem to matter - if it isn't 
alphanumeric, a hyphen, or an underscore, SA seems to get confused.


-- 
Pete `-_-'
http://www.well.com/user/wolfy
http://www.fotolog.net/wolfy/

Fortune Documents the Great Legal Decisions:

We think that we may take judicial notice of the fact that the term "bitch"
may imply some feeling of endearment when applied to a female of the canine
species but that it is seldom, if ever, so used when applied to a female
of the human race. Coming as it did, reasonably close on the heels of two
revolver shots directed at the person of whom it was probably used, we think
it carries every reasonable implication of ill-will toward that person.
		-- Smith v. Moran, 193 N.E. 2d 466.