Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Duncan Findlay
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 03:56:16PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: > On 04 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 13:38, Daniel Pittman wrote: > > [...] > > > I'm still somewhat baffled about why things weren't working in the > > first place with that particular example though, but

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Daniel Pittman
On 04 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 13:38, Daniel Pittman wrote: [...] > I'm still somewhat baffled about why things weren't working in the > first place with that particular example though, but perhaps by > tinkering with the regex we've now magically made it work. Wel

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Craig Hughes
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 13:38, Daniel Pittman wrote: > Better that you do: > > } elsif (/^([^\x00-\x1f\x7f-\xff :]+):\s*(.*)$/) { > > or > > } elsif (/^([^\x00-\x1f\x7f-\xff :]+):\s?(.*)$/) { > > ...depending on personal taste. That way the space is still removed if > it's present. Based on rea

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Craig Hughes
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 13:35, Daniel Pittman wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, peter green wrote: > >> 2) That *is* an invalid RFC822/2822 date. The specification for the > >> time does NOT allow for the ``local differential'' (+) and the > >> timezone (GMT) to be specified simultaneously. Further,

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Daniel Pittman
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jost Krieger wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 01:29:31PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: >> Yeah, I'd seen this claim of non-compliant headers in a few places >> that seemed OK to me too -- The regex it's checking is pretty nasty >> though. I'll see if I can figure out what jm was t

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Daniel Pittman
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, peter green wrote: > * peter green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020204 07:23]: >> * Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020203 14:18]: >> > X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC822 header formatting in Date: Sun, 3 >> > Feb 2002 14:31:08 + (GMT) >> > >> > Of course, that's /not/ an inval

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Daniel Pittman
On 03 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > No, not really any way to avoid this... it's a fairly important part > of NoMailAudit.pm So, using SpamAssassin means a risk of corrupted email. Hrm. Ah, well, I guess you pay for what you get. :/ > I've looked again and again at the relevant lines and can't

RE: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Craig Hughes
> From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 February 2002 08:02 > To: Craig Hughes > Cc: Daniel Pittman; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers > in email... > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Craig Hug

RE: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-04 Thread Matt Sergeant
man; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers > in email... > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: > > > > No, not really any way to avoid this... it's a fairly important part > > of NoMailAu

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-03 Thread Jeremy Zawodny
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: > > No, not really any way to avoid this... it's a fairly important part > of NoMailAudit.pm > > I've looked again and again at the relevant lines and can't make out > what could possibly be going wrong. It seems these header line > a

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-03 Thread Craig Hughes
No, not really any way to avoid this... it's a fairly important part of NoMailAudit.pm I've looked again and again at the relevant lines and can't make out what could possibly be going wrong. It seems these header line aren't matching the regex which jm built for matching email header lines, but

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin corrupts date headers in email...

2002-02-03 Thread Daniel Pittman
On 03 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > Yeah, I'd seen this claim of non-compliant headers in a few places > that seemed OK to me too -- The regex it's checking is pretty nasty > though. I'll see if I can figure out what jm was trying to do there > and fix it. Cool. Hrm... ...is there any easy way