Bug 1729 - false alarm: "2.3 -- Date: Differs by more than 4 days from current date"
Summary: false alarm: "2.3 -- Date: Differs by more than 4 days from current date"
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Rules (show other bugs)
Version: 2.20
Hardware: All other
: P5 normal
Target Milestone: 2.60
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-04-02 07:58 UTC by Melvin Klassen
Modified: 2003-04-02 09:40 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
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 Melvin Klassen 2003-04-02 07:58:38 UTC 
I get a "false-alarm", namely:

   2.3 -- Date: Differs by more than 4 days from current date  

for the following _valid_ date:

Return-Path: <bounce@mail.truegambler.com> 
 Received: from mail.truegambler.com ([12.156.5.224]) 
 by buffy.pacificcoast.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h32AtQN14146 
 for <me@here>; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:55:27 -0800 
 Received: from CAMPAIGN [12.156.5.224] by mail.truegambler.com 
 (SMTPD32-7.13) id A1DF18800F4; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 05:56:31 -0500 
 From: "TrueGambler.Com"<newsletter@mail.truegambler.com> 
 Subject: *****Spam?***** TrueGambler.Com and Casino Webcam! 
 Date: WED, 02 APR 2003 05:56:31 -0400 

There is an "off-by-one" time-zone difference
between the spammer's workstation
and the spammer's mail-server,
but the time-difference is not "four days", as claimed.
Comment 1 Matt Kettler 2003-04-02 10:22:41 UTC 
Subject: Re: [SAdev]  New: false alarm: "2.3 -- Date: Differs
  by more than 4 days from current date"

What version of spamassassin are you running? Your report indicates 2.20 a 
version which is over a year old.. the current version is 2.52.

If you're really using 2.20, we can't really help you unless the bug also 
occurs in the current release. It's one of those things that if it's 
already fixed, well, it's already fixed, we can't hack into someone else's 
servers and force-apply an update to keep them from running code which has 
known bugs.

As best I can tell, there's no rule in the 2.5x family or 2.43 that has 
that description, although I suspect that DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX is the 
current incarnation of the rule.

As far as I can tell, there's been significant re-work of this rule to fix 
bugs in it since 2.20 was released...
Comment 2 Melvin Klassen 2003-04-02 18:18:40 UTC 
Subject: Re:  false alarm:
 "2.3 -- Date: Differs by more than 4 days from current date"

bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote:
> 
> http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1729
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From mkettler-sa@comcast.net  2003-04-02 10:22 -------
> Subject: Re: [SAdev]  New: false alarm: "2.3 -- Date: Differs
>   by more than 4 days from current date"
> 
> What version of spamassassin are you running? 
> Your report indicates 2.20 a version which is over a year old. 
> the current version is 2.52.

My ISP <http://WWW.PacificCoast.Net> is running SpamAssassin
on their mail-server.

Yes, the version that I reported is the version that they are using.

Have some sympathy for my ISP -- they are just emerging from
creditor-bankruptcy protection.

  ... Melvin



> 
> If you're really using 2.20, we can't really help you unless the bug also
> occurs in the current release. It's one of those things that if it's
> already fixed, well, it's already fixed, we can't hack into someone else's
> servers and force-apply an update to keep them from running code which has
> known bugs.
> 
> As best I can tell, there's no rule in the 2.5x family or 2.43 that has
> that description, although I suspect that DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX is the
> current incarnation of the rule.
> 
> As far as I can tell, there's been significant re-work of this rule to fix
> bugs in it since 2.20 was released...
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
Comment 3 Daniel Quinlan 2003-04-02 18:40:14 UTC 
I don't get any false hits for those headers (which are incomplete and
not an attachment, anyway) using 2.54 or CVS HEAD.  The problem appears to
have been fixed some time ago.

Also, that message has an invalid Date: header which does not conform to
RFC 2822.

In the future, please attach complete example messages using the "Create a
new attachment" link (which is available on the bug page *after* you open
a bug).  Thanks.