Run saupdate. The rule has been changed.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "twofers"
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2010/February/04 04:06
Subject: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
I think I started getting this config error again during sa-update a couple
of days ago. I thought it had gone away but now it s
On 04/01/2010 2:05 AM, Mathias Homann wrote:
> ... is a fix for that out through sa-update now?
> then why am i not getting it?
> my channels for sa-update:
>
> saupdates.openprotect.com
> updates.spamassassin.org
> 70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dostech.net
>
> any hints?
saupdates.openprotect.
Am Montag, 4. Januar 2010 08:50:54 schrieb Per Jessen:
> Mathias Homann wrote:
> > ... is a fix for that out through sa-update now?
> > then why am i not getting it?
> > my channels for sa-update:
> >
> > saupdates.openprotect.com
> > updates.spamassassin.org
> > 70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dost
From: "Per Jessen"
Sent: Sunday, 2010/January/03 23:50
Mathias Homann wrote:
... is a fix for that out through sa-update now?
then why am i not getting it?
my channels for sa-update:
saupdates.openprotect.com
updates.spamassassin.org
70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dostech.net
I just ran an
From: "Mathias Homann"
Sent: Sunday, 2010/January/03 23:05
Am Montag 04 Januar 2010 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, babydr wrote:
> Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being
> caught by the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update
> repeatedly (of course tha
Mathias Homann wrote:
> ... is a fix for that out through sa-update now?
> then why am i not getting it?
> my channels for sa-update:
>
> saupdates.openprotect.com
> updates.spamassassin.org
> 70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dostech.net
I just ran an update from updates.spamassassin.org and got t
Am Montag 04 Januar 2010 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, babydr wrote:
> > Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being
> > caught by the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update
> > repeatedly (of course that was useless as crontab had already
> > ran) and with '-
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, babydr wrote:
Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being caught
by the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update repeatedly (of course
that was useless as crontab had already ran) and with '-D' & I had a
newer branch than requested in the email . So
Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being caught by
the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update repeatedly (of course that
was useless as crontab had already ran) and with '-D' & I had a newer branch
than requested in the email . So far this is the only one I've been a
>
> > The rule is probably also defined in some other file.
> > Are you using 00_FVGT_File001.cf? If so check there.
>
> 00_FVGT_File001.cf is updated on the rulesemporium site also
> where its based so you could fetch a new copy there also if needed.
>
> http://rulesemporium.com/rules/00_F
Hi!
somewhere in SA? should i enable special logging?
or, should i check the MTA and it's assigns that deal with the header?
The rule is probably also defined in some other file.
Are you using 00_FVGT_File001.cf? If so check there.
00_FVGT_File001.cf is updated on the rulesemporium si
From: "R-Elists"
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:33:42 -0800
> >
> /20[1-9][0-9]/ --> /20[2-9][0-9]/
>
we changed it to this before the update and still had the issue.
so we changed back to the older version and then zero'd the score.
waitied for the update
> >
> /20[1-9][0-9]/ --> /20[2-9][0-9]/
>
RW,
thank you...
exactly what we thought.
exactly what others said/thought.
we changed it to this before the update and still had the issue.
so we changed back to the older version and then zero'd the score.
waitied for the update
after the upda
>
> 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, 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
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
> 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.
>
&
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
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
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,
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
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
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_
33 matches
Mail list logo
