Vsevolod Stakhov

> Can this be recognized Yes, it is recognized as a common phishing pattern - URL obfuscation with html entities.

It's quite apparent that `ucl_parser_process_object_element` is not intended for such a usage.

`rep` is in percents, so it should be normalised to `[0.0..1.0]`

The main question is what should we do with this `rep`. `rep=100%` - is it good or bad? And what about `rep=0%`?

> HTTP 302 is perfectly valid redirect code, see [#RFC2616, section-10.3.3](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2616#section-10.3.3) Rspamd has no support of HTTP redirects and there are no plans to add that. We should probably change...

Rspamd is expected to get `SIGILL` when testing instructions set. Why it is not handled properly is likely your system's issue, not an Rspamd one. Please check your OS documentation.

Gnu binutils use `__builtin_cpu_supports` and that's why it works - merely with the most recent gcc/clang. I don't see that as a good alternative to what Rspamd does (at least...

Or maybe it's now quite an old compiler's feature from what I see, so we can/should presumably rely on it.

Could you please check if https://github.com/rspamd/rspamd/pull/5140 helps with your issue?

I think this should be moved to `rspamd` repo.