On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 09:00:23AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> I just got a message that hit this test:
>>
>> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE
>> version=2.01
>>
>> It had a date header that wasn't in the future, though. It was:
>>
>> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:12:20 +1100
>>
>> That's a year in the past, not in the future, and it /shouldn't/ be
>> impossible to parse...
>
> I saw a few of these when I was working on something today.
>
> Looking at the code, SA is comparing the Date: header with the dates
> in the Received: headers. If it finds that the Date is more that four
> days off the Received, it'll trip this.
Cool. That's fine and dandy; it's a reasonably low scoring test and I
don't mind false matches on tests, just false detections as SPAM. :)
Maybe the description should be:
The date in the email is inconsistent with the date the email
was sent.
or:
This message has a date far in the future or past.
> Of course, all that's required is for someone to have their system
> date set wrong (which is fairly common).
Not enough to bother me, these days. :)
Daniel
--
CAUTION: This product exerts a force on every other object in the
Universe, proportional to the product of their masses divided by the
square of the distance between them, center to center.
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
