On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 22:58 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 17:36 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> > > It would save us the guesswork if you could provide the header section
> > > of the troublesome message. As Theo pointed out, there may be problem
> > > in Received he
> On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 17:36 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> > It would save us the guesswork if you could provide the header section
> > of the troublesome message. As Theo pointed out, there may be problem
> > in Received header fields inserted by your trusted mailer - not necessarily
> > a proble
On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 17:36 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> On Saturday 25 April 2009 16:31:38 Rik wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 06:47 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> > > On 25-Apr-2009, at 01:55, Rik wrote:
> > > > Sadly I have discarded the mail, but the server time stamp and header
> > > > stamp were
On Saturday 25 April 2009 16:31:38 Rik wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 06:47 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> > On 25-Apr-2009, at 01:55, Rik wrote:
> > > Sadly I have discarded the mail, but the server time stamp and header
> > > stamp were within seconds of each other, so I don't think it's a time
> > > zo
On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 06:47 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 25-Apr-2009, at 01:55, Rik wrote:
> > Sadly I have discarded the mail, but the server time stamp and header
> > stamp were within seconds of each other, so I don't think it's a time
> > zone issue as such.
>
> Within seconds of each other inc
On 25-Apr-2009, at 01:55, Rik wrote:
Sadly I have discarded the mail, but the server time stamp and header
stamp were within seconds of each other, so I don't think it's a time
zone issue as such.
Within seconds of each other including the TZ offset?
--
Spontaneity has its time and place.
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 23:32 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.04.09 18:44, Rik wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:44:07 +0100
> >
> > I was stumped on a question today about DATE_IN_FUTURE. My googling
> > offered me nothing more than the obvious &#x
On 24.04.09 18:44, Rik wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:44:07 +0100
>
> I was stumped on a question today about DATE_IN_FUTURE. My googling
> offered me nothing more than the obvious 'The message has a date in the
> future.
>
> Thing is, I could not see it. The time s
You'd really want to post the message headers in pastebot or something
so people can look at them. It's not just the Date header, the rule
also looks at the Received headers, etc.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Rik wrote:
> I was stumped on a question today about DATE_IN_FUTURE
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Rik wrote:
I was stumped on a question today about DATE_IN_FUTURE. My googling
offered me nothing more than the obvious 'The message has a date in the
future.
Thing is, I could not see it. The time stamp was 24 Apr 2009 14:20:32
+0800 and matched the firewall conne
I was stumped on a question today about DATE_IN_FUTURE. My googling
offered me nothing more than the obvious 'The message has a date in the
future.
Thing is, I could not see it. The time stamp was 24 Apr 2009 14:20:32
+0800 and matched the firewall connection log OK. Can anyone point me
n.apache.org
> Subject: DATE_IN_FUTURE
>
> We get email from international students from Indonesia, China, Korea,
> etc.
> Sometimes the email trips one of the DATE_IN_FUTURE rules.
>
> Does this happen because the sender's computer has bad date/time? Because
> of the
&
We get email from international students from Indonesia, China, Korea, etc.
Sometimes the email trips one of the DATE_IN_FUTURE rules.
Does this happen because the sender's computer has bad date/time? Because of the
time zone they are sending from? Or some other reason?
Some of this email
At 02:44 AM 8/31/2005, Beast wrote:
3. I have train hundreds (or thousands) spam/ham mail to sa-learn but it
seems it still not quite good detecting non-english mail.
Because SpamAssassin is based on the english language. SpamAssassin
doesn't know that in (example) Language X that "blahblahbla
At 01:58 AM 8/31/2005, Beast wrote:
---
Received: from notes.trakindo.co.id (notes.trakindo.co.id [202.152.6.165])
by mail.indorama.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F50E7932
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:15:29 +0700 (WIT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "My User" <[EMAIL
Beast wrote:
Evan Platt wrote:
Received by your system: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:15:29 +0700
Header Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:59:56 -0700
Isn't that should be date in the past?
Sorry, my mistake. It was correct.
15:59:56 GMT vs 5:15:29 GMT.
--
--beast
At 11:44 PM 8/30/2005, you wrote:
Isn't that should be date in the past?
Nope.. In the future.
Bouncing mail / NDR.
Not with spamassasin. With your MTA/ procmail or other method, but SA
can only scan messages, it has no capabilities to do anything based
on the score.
That means using b
Evan Platt wrote:
Received by your system: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:15:29 +0700
Header Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:59:56 -0700
Isn't that should be date in the past?
2. How do I pass all bounce email?
Sorry, not sure I understand...?
Bouncing mail / NDR.
3. I have train hundreds (or thous
You sent the message to the list:
Received: from [202.154.34.135] (HELO v6.i6x.org) (202.154.34.135)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:59:21 -0700
The spam message header you showed:
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:59:56 -0700
The Date header on that mail is some 9 ho
At 10:58 PM 8/30/2005, you wrote:
---
Received: from notes.trakindo.co.id (notes.trakindo.co.id [202.152.6.165])
by mail.indorama.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F50E7932
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:15:29 +0700 (WIT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "My User" <[EMAIL PR
---
Received: from notes.trakindo.co.id (notes.trakindo.co.id [202.152.6.165])
by mail.indorama.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F50E7932
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:15:29 +0700 (WIT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "My User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: *[SPAM - score 6
Ratchanee Wongwisarnsee wrote on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:09:26 +0700:
> Iâve some problem with the DATE_IN_FUTURE rules since it cause a false
> positive
Well, some details may help. Also, if possible, please send text/plain only,
thanks
:-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get yo
Hi all
I’ve some problem with the DATE_IN_FUTURE rules since it
cause a false positive. Does anyone have any suggestion? I am considering to decrease
the score of this rule but I concern that it will cause more spam get through.
Thanks
23 matches
Mail list logo
