SA Bugzilla – Bug 6272
FH_DATE_PAST_20XX scores on all mails dated 2010 or later.
Last modified: 2010-01-03 14:15:28 UTC
The documentation on the page describing this rule in the wiki (http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/FH_DATE_PAST_20XX) is incorrect it states: If you want to change this test to 'later than 2020' , edit the following file: 1) locate 72_active.cf && sudo vi 'locate 72_active.cf' 2) search 'FH_DATE_PAST_20XX' 3) change '/20[1-9][0-9]/' to '/20[2-9][0-9]/' which should either read followed by the same instructions as above: "If you want to change this test to 'later than 2019-12-31' , edit the following file:" This because the regular expression will match 2020 just like it did with 2010 before the rule change. Perhaps it is also worth mentioning bug 6271 as this rule will be obsoleted. I am just making not of this since the mentioned page is linked from slashdot (http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/0027207/SpamAssassin-2010-Bug) as well which is bound to direct more traffic to this page than it would otherwise have done.
dupe of bug 6269? Also, that bug is fixed, and published to sa-update. If the rule is still causing you trouble, update your ruleset and it should go away.
(In reply to comment #1) > dupe of bug 6269? No. If you would have read this bug carefully you would have seen that it is an issue with the documentation regarding the new rule: (In reply to comment #0) > The documentation on the page describing this rule in the wiki > (http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/FH_DATE_PAST_20XX) is incorrect it > states: (In reply to comment #1) > Also, that bug is fixed, and published to sa-update. If the rule is still > causing you trouble, update your ruleset and it should go away. I know the rule has been updated and I have no issues with that.
(In reply to comment #2) > > No. If you would have read this bug carefully you would have seen that it is an > issue with the documentation regarding the new rule: You do realize that the "documentation" you are referring to is a _collaborative_ wiki that anyone can edit? Hardly worth the bug report.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > No. If you would have read this bug carefully you would have seen that it is an > > issue with the documentation regarding the new rule: > > You do realize that the "documentation" you are referring to is a > _collaborative_ wiki that anyone can edit? Hardly worth the bug report. No, I thought this might have been taken from some auto generated stuff. I also work for some products where documentation changes also go through a tracking system, especially important things core rules as these.
Fair enough. Anyways, the official documentation and this wiki are different things. Not sure your 2020 edit has much of a purpose, but I added the missing bug.
I've just removed that portion of the page; sa-update will already make those changes, and there's instructions on disabling.