Agreed, he's clearly unaware of https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6271
Anyone care to craft a response? I think we should. bonus points for including the obligatory comp.risks tagline: "The RISK? Jumping to an invalid conclusion based on incomplete research." ;) --j. 2010/3/5 Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de>: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:45 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: >> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.94.html#subj11 >> I suggest someone send RISKS a clarification if indeed the issue is resolved. > > I suggest the author checks the facts. The following quote, the > beginning of that, err... text, is utter bullshit. > > In RISKS-25.89 ("Y2K+10 problem 4: SpamAssassin tags '2010' e-mail as > spammish") M. Burstein wrote that the problem was that "It seems the 'year > date' was hard/hand coded, as opposed to making a comparison to 'today's' > date." and observed that "The SpamAssassin folk have a new version which > corrects this problem." In fact, they do not. The replacement rule > incorporates the same problem as before, scheduled to occur simply ten years > further into the future, in January 2020. This mistake has not been learned > from, let alone corrected. > > There are bugs open about this. There are rules currently under > evaluation, which will make this a fluid target, rather than a hardcoded > year. > > We've got ten years, to close that bug and finish the evaluation. And > even to come up with a more narrow definition of "grossly in the > future". > > Yes, that quote is what you get if you base your judgement *and* future > predictions solely on the incident -- but forget to check current > development and what's being done to prevent it. > > That quote hardly was worth my reply. *sigh* > > > -- > char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; > main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: > (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}} > > -- --j.
