I've posted the following note on the Apache SpamAssassin website [1]
about an issue with a rule that may cause wanted email to be classified
as spam by SpamAssassin. If you're running SpamAssassin 3.2.x you are
encouraged to update you rules (updates were released on sa-update
around 1900 UTC Jan
>
> The easiest way to see what is being changed since your last
> sa-update is to first sa-update /tmp and diff. The change is
> trivial but significant...
>
snip
>
>
> -jeff
>
thanks Jeff,
umm what we saw was that the first FH_DATE_PAST_20XX update rule push wasnt
actually corrected...
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:08:22 -0500
Jeff Koch wrote:
>
> Well, now that it's 2010 I'm getting a lot of hits on
>
> FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future
>
> for emails that have been sent this year and are otherwise OK.
>
> What's up with that? Our SA is fairly current and we run
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:48:13 -0800
"R-Elists" wrote:
> what should the new rule look like?
>
> i mean, i get it, and i think i know, and i even tested it and it was
> still failing even after a restarts...
>
> s...
>
> seriously, i disabled the rule early AM yet when the update came
> thro
Well, now that it's 2010 I'm getting a lot of hits on
FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future
for emails that have been sent this year and are otherwise OK.
What's up with that? Our SA is fairly current and we run sa-update once a
week. Has this program bug been corrected yet?
From: "R-Elists"
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:48:13 -0800
> Cc: Spamassassin users list
> Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
>
> Damn -- mea culpa. When we fixed the bug in SVN trunk in bug
> 5852, I should have immediately backported it to the 3.2.x
> sa-update ch
> Cc: Spamassassin users list
> Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
>
> Damn -- mea culpa. When we fixed the bug in SVN trunk in bug
> 5852, I should have immediately backported it to the 3.2.x
> sa-update channel when I commited that patch, but I didn't.
>
> It's now fixed in updates,
I've had an installation of SpamAssassin which I've been happy with for
a number of years, its rulesets have been updated using Rules Du Jour.
I've moved to a new server which has less rulesets installed and is
catching less spam. The rulesets in this new installation are currently
not updated.
I've had an installation of SpamAssassin which I've been happy with for
a number of years, its rulesets have been updated using Rules Du Jour.
I've moved to a new server which has less rulesets installed and is
catching less spam. The rulesets in this new installation are currently
not updated.
Damn -- mea culpa. When we fixed the bug in SVN trunk in bug 5852, I
should have immediately backported it to the 3.2.x sa-update channel
when I commited that patch, but I didn't.
It's now fixed in updates, but that won't help the admins who've been
paged to deal with high FP rates on a holiday.
> On 12/31/2009 7:57 PM, 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
On Fri, 2010-01-01 at 10:04 -0500, Thomas Harold wrote:
> 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.
>
Mine w
You know - anyone unhappy about this can always ask for a full refund
on the purchase price paid for SpamAssassin :-)
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
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
I think this rule should just be put to rest. According to my stats it
hits 100% spam, but there's only very very few of it. Thus it doesn't add
any real value over other rules, especially when one takes into account
that there are already other rules hitting on time in the (near) future.
There
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 F
On 12/31/2009 7:57 PM, 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
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
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
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010
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 thi
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
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:44:27 +
Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Also, the "fix" five months ago was to add 10 years to what is
> classified as "grossly in the future"... That doesn't sound to me as
> though this ruke was based on the results of a mass check...
>
And Happy New Year to you from the dev
Mike Cardwell wrote:
> On 01/01/2010 10:15, Per Jessen wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
Yes, that fix
From: "Herbert J. Skuhra"
Sent: Friday, 2010/January/01 01:17
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 dat
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.
>>>
>>> Yet the date header looks fine to me:
>>>
>>> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:46:45 GMT
>>>
>>>
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
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:17:57 +0100
"Herbert J. Skuhra" 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
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 head
29 matches
Mail list logo
