[SPAM:9.4] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX

[Christian Brel <br...@copperproductions.co.uk>]

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:17:57 +0100
"Herbert J. Skuhra" <h....@gmail.com> wrote:

> At Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:53:24 -0800 (PST),
> John Hardin wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Agree, that should probably be [2-9][0-9].
> 
> What about
> 
> header   FH_DATE_PAST_20XX	Date =~ /(201[1-9])|(20[2-9][0-9])/
> 
> and
> 
> ##{ FH_DATE_IS_200X
> header   FH_DATE_IS_200X        Date =~ /200[0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]
> describe FH_DATE_IS_200X        The date is not 200x.
> ##} FH_DATE_IS_200X
> 
> -Herbert

Perhaps in a couple of days. There may still be deferred mail sat in
peoples outbound queues with 2009 on it ;-)