Seen other companies email systems not follow standards as well (I think MS-EXCH can be easily broken). I've seen stuff arrive in a Eudora MUA and get filed at the 'top' well out of the way of recent messages and the user then swears blind they never got the email.....till they scroll to the other end of the inbox and notice there's stuff with no date entry.....
</rant> -- Martin Hepworth Snr Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300 > -----Original Message----- > From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 March 2006 16:26 > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: INVALID_DATE > > For what it's worth, Vodafone's as bad (stuff changed to protect the > innocent): > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Nov 9, 2005 4:53 PM > Subject: You have received a new message > > RFC2822 is unequivocal about the day month year order, the hour being 2 > digits, and what the heck is this PM time zone? > > This isn't a slight error or misinterpretation of RFC2822, it's an "f*** > you" to it. > > Doesn't anybody check these things before deploying automated services? > > Cheers, > > Phil > ---- > Phil Randal > Network Engineer > Herefordshire Council > Hereford, UK > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Philip Prindeville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 22 March 2006 16:10 > > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > > Subject: Re: INVALID_DATE > > > > David Lee wrote: > > > > >System: SA 3.1.0 (called from MailScanner, called from sendmail. > > > > > >The ISP "mmail.co.uk" (part of the O2 mobile phone ("cellphone" under > > >trans-Atlantic translation!) company here in the UK) > > generates a peculiar > > >"Date:" format. So when it arrives here, our SA is tagging > > it as spam. > > >Part of the headers: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Date: Wed, 22 Mar 06 12:00:00 GMT Standard Time > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Subject: {Spam?} MMail Message > > >>X-Mailer: <WIN Mail> > > >>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2006 12:00:00.0046 (UTC) > > >> FILETIME=[253124E0:01C64DA8] > > >>X-DurhamAcUk-MailScanner: Found to be clean > > >>X-DurhamAcUk-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=6.804, > > >> required 6, BAYES_40 -0.18, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 2.53, > > >> FROM_LOCAL_HEX 1.30, INVALID_DATE 2.19, NO_REAL_NAME 0.96) > > >>X-DurhamAcUk-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssssss > > >> > > >> > > > > > >For data privacy reasons, I have "x"d out some of the purely-digit > > >"From:" LHS. > > > > > >Aside: the "FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS" and "FROM_LOCAL_HEX" are probably > > >immutable, as the "mmail.co.uk" service definition uses a > > mobile number > > >as that "From:" LHS. > > > > > >The main addressable issue here seems to be the "INVALID_DATE". The > > >"Date:" supplied by Mmail does not have a simple timezone > > (e.g. expect > > >"GMT"), but rather "GMT Standard Time". (Correct?) > > > > > >This seems to me to be a clear breach of RFC2822. Mmail's > > defence is that > > >section 4.3 ends: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Other multi-character (usually between 3 and 5) alphabetic > > time zones > > >> have been used in Internet messages. Any such time zone whose > > >> meaning is not known SHOULD be considered equivalent to "-0000" > > >> unless there is out-of-band information confirming their meaning. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >and that the "usually 3 or 5 alphabetic" could (they argue) > > include the > > >17-character "GMT Standard Time". > > > > > >Can someone demonstrate from RFC2822 that "GMT Standard > > Time" definitely > > >is, or definitely isn't, technically legal? > > > > > >(If it does happen to be legal, and if this nevertheless > > triggers SA's > > >INVALID_DATE, then we have an SA bug.) > > > > > >Would "GMT (Standard Time)" be legal? (I raise that just in > > case "mmail" > > >really need to keep that information in that place for some > > reason; this > > >would give them a way out.) > > > > > > > > > > In all engineering, including Software, the KISS principle applies. > > > > Even if "GMT Standard Time" were legal (and it's doubtful), > > what do you > > get by using that string instead of "GMT" tout court? > > > > In the old days of the Internet, when they first started having "bake > > offs" as they > > were called back then, if a standard was ambiguous, then you'd look at > > whichever > > vendors managed to interoperate... ask them how they had done > > things... and > > bless their way of interpreting the standard as the "right way". > > (That's how we > > ended up settling some thorny questions about IP security > > option processing, > > for instance...) > > > > What you have here is a failure to interoperate. ;-) > > > > -Philip > > ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean. **********************************************************************
