On Saturday April 14 2007 01:24:47 John Clements wrote: > >> Date: 05 Apr 2007 05:05:39 -0700 > >> Date: 05 Apr 2007 05:05:39 -0700 > >> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:46:01 -0500
> >> Now, I took a quick look at rfc 2822, and all of the Date fields > >> in this e-mail would appear to be compliant. Yes, the day-of-week with its comma is optional. > >> So: is there a bug > >> in spamassassin's Date parsing, or is yahoo committing some subtle > >> bug, or is the mailer's original date somehow non-compliant? > Yes, that's a wonderful question. Apparently, Yahoo feels the need > to insert additional Date: headers as it remails things. RFC 2822 section 3.6 mandates there must be exactly one Date header field. > Perhaps multiple Date: headers is the reason that spam assassin > considers it non-compliant? So it seems (and rightfully so). Perhaps it would be better to have a separate rule for multiple header fields which may appear at most once, in analogy with a MISSING_DATE which covers for the lower bound - if need appears to give them different scores. Mark
