> On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 17:36 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote: > > It would save us the guesswork if you could provide the header section > > of the troublesome message. As Theo pointed out, there may be problem > > in Received header fields inserted by your trusted mailer - not necessarily > > a problem in the Date header field. This is not a single rule, but a code > > section which tries to guess the actual timetamp at the moment of a > > message reception.
On 25.04.09 17:02, Rik wrote: > Thanks for the response Mark. I've sussed it. Whilst I binned the > messages concerned I managed to find another one (pasted below) and I > can easily see the problem in the headers now. Sanity is restored; > > Received: from mail.caucasus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mx.munged.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 79C392BF2B4 > for <abarse...@munged.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:11:40 +0400 (GET) > Received: from mail.caucasus.net (mail.caucasus.net [62.168.168.131]) by > mx.munged.com with ESMTP id 8Sd65BVE6VAShNZt for <abarse...@munged.com>; > Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:11:40 +0400 (GET) > Received: from localhost (relay [62.168.168.208]) > by mail.caucasus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661FF3810AC > for <abarse...@munged.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:11:40 +0400 (GET) > Received: from mail.caucasus.net ([62.168.168.131]) > by localhost (relay.caucasus.net [62.168.168.208]) (amavisd-new, port > 10004) > with ESMTP id U9a1cdneOGIs for <abarse...@munged.com>; > Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:11:40 +0400 (GET) > Received: from v (host-88-210-236-219.adsl.caucasus.net > [88.210.236.219]) > by mail.caucasus.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C17C38105A > for <abarse...@munged.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:11:38 +0400 (GET) > Message-ID: <f67d100cde8b4c059ab81fefd684d...@v> > From: "Ia Peradze" <i...@nic.ge> > To: "Alexander Barsegov" <abarse...@munged.com> > References: > <ebdc2591edb8204eb0b2a34ca36daa962faf4ae...@mailbox.munged.com> > Subject: Re: orangecab.ge domain re-registration > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:05:52 -0400 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0255_01C9B3D6.CE788D30" > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 > Disposition-Notification-To: "Ia Peradze" <i...@nic.ge> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 > X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090402-0, 04/02/2009), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean The same problem again. The Date: shows 8 hours more than all other Received: headers. Yes, the time zone IS important. When it's 21:11 +0400, it's only 17:11 +GMT (+0000) and only 13:11 -0400. So, 21:05 -0400 will be in aproximately 8 hours. Setting date to the future is the technique used by spammers to make their spam show as the most recent in the mailbox. The sender has misconfigured timezone. The description of the rule says it: describe DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours after Received: date -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. We are but packets in the Internet of life (userfriendly.org)
