From: Mathias Homann ad...@eregion.de
Sent: Sunday, 2010/January/03 23:05
Am Montag 04 Januar 2010 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, babydr wrote:
Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being
caught by the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update
repeatedly
Am Montag, 4. Januar 2010 08:50:54 schrieb Per Jessen:
Mathias Homann wrote:
... is a fix for that out through sa-update now?
then why am i not getting it?
my channels for sa-update:
saupdates.openprotect.com
updates.spamassassin.org
70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dostech.net
I
On 04/01/2010 2:05 AM, Mathias Homann wrote:
... is a fix for that out through sa-update now?
then why am i not getting it?
my channels for sa-update:
saupdates.openprotect.com
updates.spamassassin.org
70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dostech.net
any hints?
saupdates.openprotect.com
Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being caught by
the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update repeatedly (of course that
was useless as crontab had already ran) and with '-D' I had a newer branch
than requested in the email . So far this is the only one I've been
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, babydr wrote:
Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being caught
by the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update repeatedly (of course
that was useless as crontab had already ran) and with '-D' I had a
newer branch than requested in the email . So
Am Montag 04 Januar 2010 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, babydr wrote:
Hello All , My main ? is how was this (see below(*)) email being
caught by the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX . I've run the sa_update
repeatedly (of course that was useless as crontab had already
ran) and with '-D' I
Mathias Homann wrote:
... is a fix for that out through sa-update now?
then why am i not getting it?
my channels for sa-update:
saupdates.openprotect.com
updates.spamassassin.org
70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dostech.net
I just ran an update from updates.spamassassin.org and got the
/20[1-9][0-9]/ -- /20[2-9][0-9]/
RW,
thank you...
exactly what we thought.
exactly what others said/thought.
we changed it to this before the update and still had the issue.
so we changed back to the older version and then zero'd the score.
waitied for the update
after the update,
From: R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:33:42 -0800
/20[1-9][0-9]/ -- /20[2-9][0-9]/
we changed it to this before the update and still had the issue.
so we changed back to the older version and then zero'd the score.
waitied for the
Hi!
somewhere in SA? should i enable special logging?
or, should i check the MTA and it's assigns that deal with the header?
The rule is probably also defined in some other file.
Are you using 00_FVGT_File001.cf? If so check there.
00_FVGT_File001.cf is updated on the rulesemporium
The rule is probably also defined in some other file.
Are you using 00_FVGT_File001.cf? If so check there.
00_FVGT_File001.cf is updated on the rulesemporium site also
where its based so you could fetch a new copy there also if needed.
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 01/01/2010 10:15, Per Jessen wrote:
I just received some HAM with a surprisingly high score. The
following rule triggered:
* 3.2 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future.
Agree, that should probably be [2-9][0-9].
Please open a bug for
would commenting out FH_DATE_PAST_20XX in 72_active.cf help until it's
fixed?
Thanks
Frank
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Charles Gregory wrote:
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:50:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
On 1/1/2010 9:59 AM, Frank DeChellis DSL wrote:
would commenting out FH_DATE_PAST_20XX in 72_active.cf help until it's
fixed?
My temporary fix was to override the score and set it to 0.001 in SA's
local.cf file.
# Turn down score on broken date testing rule
score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0.001
On Fri, 2010-01-01 at 10:04 -0500, Thomas Harold wrote:
On 1/1/2010 9:59 AM, Frank DeChellis DSL wrote:
would commenting out FH_DATE_PAST_20XX in 72_active.cf help until it's
fixed?
My temporary fix was to override the score and set it to 0.001 in SA's
local.cf file.
Mine was to edit
Cc: Spamassassin users list
Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Damn -- mea culpa. When we fixed the bug in SVN trunk in bug
5852, I should have immediately backported it to the 3.2.x
sa-update channel when I commited that patch, but I didn't.
It's now fixed in updates
From: R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:48:13 -0800
Cc: Spamassassin users list
Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
Damn -- mea culpa. When we fixed the bug in SVN trunk in bug
5852, I should have immediately backported it to the 3.2.x
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:48:13 -0800
R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net wrote:
what should the new rule look like?
i mean, i get it, and i think i know, and i even tested it and it was
still failing even after a restarts...
s...
seriously, i disabled the rule early AM yet when the update
The easiest way to see what is being changed since your last
sa-update is to first sa-update /tmp and diff. The change is
trivial but significant...
snip
-jeff
thanks Jeff,
umm what we saw was that the first FH_DATE_PAST_20XX update rule push wasnt
actually corrected...
the
19 matches
Mail list logo
