On 27.08.09 13:59, Mike Cardwell wrote: > I received an email with a date header like this: > > Date: 27 Aug 09 13:50:20 0100 > > That header triggered the following rule: > > 1.7 INVALID_DATE Invalid Date: header (not RFC 2822) > > That's fair enough, but then a second rule was incorrectly triggered: > > 2.3 DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX Date: is 96 hours or more before Received: date > > Although the date header was badly formatted, it wasn't actually > incorrect as far as when the message was sent. I don't think the > DATE_IN_PAST rules should fire if the date isn't valid in the first > place...
While it's logically true, the invalid date really needs to be fixed, and I doubt that rule like meta DATE_INVALID_PAST (INVALID_DATE && DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX) would give us any benefit, although you can try running it through masscheck ... (didn't someone here promise us a score tester?) -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. - Have you got anything without Spam in it? - Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.
