On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
Can we call this the "Y2010" bug? :)
I was just thinking back 10 years ago today wondering if there would be a
2010 related date bug.
Funny thing is, I can *remember* writing scripts for my current system that
included 2010 as a 'sanity check' (impossible date), figuring I would
update the code long before I got here. Now I'm looking at my system and
wondering, DID I update all those programs? LOL
- C
Charles Gregory wrote:
Holy ########!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am SO glad that I read my e-mail first thing this morning!
THANKS for spotting this!
- Charles
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell 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.
>
> Yet the date header looks fine to me:
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:46:45 GMT
>
> In /usr/share/spamassassin/72_active.cf I find:
>
> header FH_DATE_PAST_20XX Date =~ /20[1-9][0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]
>
> Doesn't look particularly sane to me... I have given that rule a score
> of 0 in my local.cf for now.
>
> --
> Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
> Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
> Technical Blog: https://secure.grepular.com/blog/
>
