On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, peter green wrote:
> * Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020203 14:18]:
> > Most messages that I get, these days, matches the "missing date" test,
> > and ends up with something like:
> >
> > X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC822 header formatting in Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002
>14:3
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 trying to do there and fix it.
Forgive me, I
* 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 invalid RFC822 date, it's SpamAssassin[1]
> > decidin
* Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020203 14:18]:
> Most messages that I get, these days, matches the "missing date" test,
> and ends up with something like:
>
> X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC822 header formatting in Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002
>14:31:08 + (GMT)
>
> Of course, that's /not/ an
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.
C
On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 13:23, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Most messages t
Most messages that I get, these days, matches the "missing date" test,
and ends up with something like:
X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC822 header formatting in Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:31:08
+ (GMT)
Of course, that's /not/ an invalid RFC822 date, it's SpamAssassin[1]
deciding that it's not r
