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 15:50:24 UTC
Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> On 01/01/2010 10:15, Per Jessen 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.
>>> Agree, that should probably be [2-9][0-9].
>>> Please open a bug for this, it should be fixed for 3.3.0
>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6269
> Following that URL you find out that the "bug" was fixed five months
> ago. I'm using the Debian Lenny package and it doesn't contain that fix.
NOW the 'minor' issue I raised before has just become a MAJOR one.
I have already fixed my config, so let's skip *that* portion of the
argument.... :)
I speak for the unguessable number of people who have installed a
'standard' 3.2.x install with their linux variant, and don't monitor
closely, or watch this list. Some of them, we can hope, will have
'sa-update' running in their nightly cron job. But will that do any good
if this 'patch' is not 'rushed' out as an sa-update for the current
version?
You could release 3.3.0 today, but that would not benefit people who don't
know about the upgrade and leave it at 3.2.x.....
And my pity to all those people who don't run sa-update..... :(
- Charles
Re: [sa] FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Thomas Harold wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:04:42 -0500:
> score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0.001
set to 0, there's no reason to have this evaluated at all.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Posted by Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>.
On 1/1/2010 9:59 AM, Frank DeChellis DSL wrote:
> would commenting out FH_DATE_PAST_20XX in 72_active.cf help until it's
> fixed?
>
My temporary fix was to override the score and set it to 0.001 in SA's
local.cf file.
# Turn down score on broken date testing rule
score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0.001
Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Posted by Frank DeChellis DSL <fr...@iaw.on.ca>.
would commenting out FH_DATE_PAST_20XX in 72_active.cf help until it's
fixed?
Thanks
Frank
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:50:24 -0500 (EST)
> From: Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> On 01/01/2010 10:15, Per Jessen 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.
>>>> Agree, that should probably be [2-9][0-9].
>>>> Please open a bug for this, it should be fixed for 3.3.0
>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6269
>> Following that URL you find out that the "bug" was fixed five months
>> ago. I'm using the Debian Lenny package and it doesn't contain that fix.
>
> NOW the 'minor' issue I raised before has just become a MAJOR one.
>
> I have already fixed my config, so let's skip *that* portion of the
> argument.... :)
>
> I speak for the unguessable number of people who have installed a 'standard'
> 3.2.x install with their linux variant, and don't monitor closely, or watch
> this list. Some of them, we can hope, will have 'sa-update' running in their
> nightly cron job. But will that do any good if this 'patch' is not 'rushed'
> out as an sa-update for the current version?
>
> You could release 3.3.0 today, but that would not benefit people who don't
> know about the upgrade and leave it at 3.2.x.....
>
> And my pity to all those people who don't run sa-update..... :(
>
> - Charles
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank DeChellis
Internet Access Worldwide
3 East Main Street Welland, Ontario, Canada L3B 3W4
905-714-1400 fax 905-732-0524
www.iaw.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [SPAM:13.0] Re: [sa] FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Posted by Christian Brel <br...@copperproductions.co.uk>.
You know - anyone unhappy about this can always ask for a full refund
on the purchase price paid for SpamAssassin :-)
Re: [sa] FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Charles Gregory wrote on Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:50:24 -0500 (EST):
> I speak for the unguessable number of people who have installed a
> 'standard' 3.2.x install with their linux variant, and don't monitor
> closely, or watch this list. Some of them, we can hope, will have
> 'sa-update' running in their nightly cron job. But will that do any good
> if this 'patch' is not 'rushed' out as an sa-update for the current
> version?
This bug is also hitting a good number of mail providers and has made it to
the news. Makes for a good measurement for support at those companies. ;-)
Where you still see this rule scoring there's obviously nobody paying
attention on holidays ...
>
> You could release 3.3.0 today, but that would not benefit people who don't
> know about the upgrade and leave it at 3.2.x.....
>
> And my pity to all those people who don't run sa-update..... :(
Well, that's their problem. Really.
It should be made clear that a well-tuned sa setup will put thru all the ham
still as ham. Most of our customer's ham scores even after applying this rule
between 1 and 3 and easily makes it thru. If a considerable amount of ham is
turned to spam on a certain setup there's likely something wrong with that
setup.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com