Re: Date parsing

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>]

On 27.08.09 13:59, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> I received an email with a date header like this:
>
> Date: 27 Aug 09 13:50:20 0100
>
> That header triggered the following rule:
>
> 1.7 INVALID_DATE           Invalid Date: header (not RFC 2822)
>
> That's fair enough, but then a second rule was incorrectly triggered:
>
> 2.3 DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX     Date: is 96 hours or more before Received: date
>
> Although the date header was badly formatted, it wasn't actually  
> incorrect as far as when the message was sent. I don't think the  
> DATE_IN_PAST rules should fire if the date isn't valid in the first 
> place...

While it's logically true, the invalid date really needs to be fixed, and I
doubt that rule like

meta DATE_INVALID_PAST (INVALID_DATE && DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX)

would give us any benefit, although you can try running it through
masscheck ...

(didn't someone here promise us a score tester?)
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
- Have you got anything without Spam in it?
- Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.