You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org> on 2010/01/01 15:33:51 UTC
Re: PH_DATE_PAST_20XX
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/
>
Re: [sa] Re: PH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Posted by 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/
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: PH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Posted by Marc Perkel <ma...@perkel.com>.
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.
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/
>>
>