Bug 1192 - Bad hit on MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME ?
Summary: Bad hit on MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME ?
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Rules (show other bugs)
Version: 2.43
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Daniel Quinlan
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-11-05 12:48 UTC by Bart Schaefer
Modified: 2003-10-01 05:05 UTC (History)
1 user (show)


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Possible patch (against 2.43, diff -u format) patch None Martin Radford [HasCLA]
Message with "X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000" header text/plain None Martin Radford [HasCLA]
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Bart Schaefer 2002-11-05 12:48:57 UTC 
Received a message containing these headers:

X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
Thread-Index: AcKFABdFncCZM8NjSRqn3n0FhxaiHw==
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700

Although technically the test is correct -- this looks like Outlook, but is not --
it isn't indicative of a "forged" X-MimeOLE header and probably shouldn't trigger
as a spam indicator.
Comment 1 Martin Radford 2002-12-21 09:04:39 UTC 
Created attachment 503 [details]
Possible patch (against 2.43, diff -u format)
Comment 2 Martin Radford 2002-12-21 09:11:14 UTC 
"X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000" is used on Microsoft's newsletters, 
since December 2001 and hence is quite common.

The suggested patch I've just uploaded will do the trick, though you might 
prefer to make it more specific.
Comment 3 Tobias v. Koch 2002-12-21 09:53:03 UTC 
Could you give a Message-Id of such a "Microsoft CDO" message?
Comment 4 Daniel Quinlan 2002-12-21 15:24:06 UTC 
Subject: Re: [SAdev]  Bad hit on MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME ?

Can you please attach an entire example message using the
"Create a new attachment" link on the bug page -- not cut and paste,
please.

Thanks.
Comment 5 Daniel Quinlan 2002-12-28 16:05:44 UTC 
I'll try it.  I have 1 questionable nonspam (UCE from a company I had done
business with) and 600+ spams that would be not hit by MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME
if we apply this patch.

We'll try it out and see how it works on the nightly runs.
Comment 6 Martin Radford 2002-12-29 16:54:03 UTC 
Created attachment 522 [details]
Message with "X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000" header
Comment 7 Daniel Quinlan 2003-01-02 17:16:44 UTC 
fixed in CVS, added CDO to rule
Comment 8 Henry James 2003-08-04 07:11:35 UTC 
See bug #1970 comment #2.
Comment 9 Henry James 2003-09-30 01:07:48 UTC 
What is taking so long to fix this trivial bug?
Comment 10 Daniel Quinlan 2003-09-30 01:35:02 UTC 
> What is taking so long to fix this trivial bug?

Because you reopened this ancient bug after it had been closed
for *seven* months and 2.50 had been out for almost six months.
AND there was a perfectly adequate bug filed against the new problem.

The original bug, as reported on 2002-11-05 was fixed 2003-01-02 and
the fix was included in SpamAssassin 2.50.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1970 ***
Comment 11 Henry James 2003-10-01 06:02:56 UTC 
> Because you reopened this ancient bug after it had been closed
> for *seven* months and 2.50 had been out for almost six months.

I reopened it for a reason. This bug is about "Bad hit on MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME",
and it is exactly what we're see now. Why does it matter how many months (or
years, decades, centries, for that matter) it has been since it was once closed?
Isn't that what "reopen" is all about?

> AND there was a perfectly adequate bug filed against the new problem.

It's not "adequate" at all. I know about bug #1970, don't you see my reopening
comment in which I was in fact pointing out to my *own* comment on bug #1970?
But bug #1970 is about a bunch of different mishits (new Outlook versions has
broken more than one SA test), and it's no way clear what actually is to be fixed.

No matter what, the fix I suggested (which can't be any simpler) is still not
fixed, as I can see in the CVS. Regardless of if this bug is duplicate or not,
please just apply the damn fix!
Comment 12 Daniel Quinlan 2003-10-01 13:05:30 UTC 
The equivalent of your fix was applied already, the new problem is
something else and is a duplicate of another bug.  Please stop
reopening this bug.