Re: [sa] Re: PH_DATE_PAST_20XX

[Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>]

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Can we call this the "Y2010" bug? :)
> I was just thinking back 10 years ago today wondering if there would be a 
> 2010 related date bug.

Funny thing is, I can *remember* writing scripts for my current system that 
included 2010 as a 'sanity check' (impossible date), figuring I would 
update the code long before I got here. Now I'm looking at my system and 
wondering, DID I update all those programs? LOL

- C

> Charles Gregory wrote:
>>
>>  Holy ########!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>  I am SO glad that I read my e-mail first thing this morning!
>>
>>  THANKS for spotting this!
>>
>>  - Charles
>> 
>>
>>  On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> >  I just received some HAM with a surprisingly high score. The following
>> >  rule triggered:
>> > 
>> >  *  3.2 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future.
>> > 
>> >  Yet the date header looks fine to me:
>> > 
>> >  Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:46:45 GMT
>> > 
>> >  In /usr/share/spamassassin/72_active.cf I find:
>> > 
>> >  header   FH_DATE_PAST_20XX    Date =~ /20[1-9][0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]
>> > 
>> >  Doesn't look particularly sane to me... I have given that rule a score
>> >  of 0 in my local.cf for now.
>> > 
>> >  -- 
>> >  Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
>> >  Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
>> >  Technical Blog: https://secure.grepular.com/blog/
>> > 
>> 
>
>