From: Todd Lyons
Date: 2009-08-27 11:19:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: milter-date ignores -strict-date-syntax option
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Anthony Howe<email@example.com> wrote:
> Todd Lyons uttered...:
>> I have milter-date in deployment, I'm getting valid customers whose
> Can you please send samples of the bad Date or Received header time
> stamps that fail to parse please. I can then see if the formats are
> sufficient enough to support.
It's from an Exchange server of some sort. I've left a voicemail for
the server admin to obtain more information about his setup. I'll
find out if it's his Exchange box or the MXLogic service they're
sending through or the app that is generating the emails that is
adding this improperly formatted header.
Aug 25 07:49:11 smtp4 sendmail: n7PEmtiU022683:
to=<firstname.lastname@example.org>, delay=00:00:01, pri=67537, stat="Tue
Aug 25 09:48:47 CDT 2009" does not conform to RFC 2822 section 3.3.
Date and Time Specification
Test results below, it would be accepted if the year and the timezone
> Currently convertDate supports the following:
M not zones)
Good to know, there is a pattern in there that I didn't know the
milter would accept.
> It might be the case that the list of time zone names is incomplete or
> no longer used as mentioned here
I could swear I read in an email on the archive that it had to be an
offset from GMT, not a named timezone. I'm glad to see that's a
misunderstanding on my part, and verified by testing the
aforementioned rejected Date header with the year and timezone simply
[rpmbuild@telesto util]$ ./convertDate -v 'Tue Aug 25 09:48:47 2009 CDT'
1251211727 "Tue Aug 25 09:48:47 2009 CDT" 28
And WRT to the aforementioned code question, I see now that it skips
everything, which of course was not what I intended. What I intended
was to just verify that there is a date header, not that it meets the
definition in the RFC.
Copyright 2009, 2012 by SnertSoft. All rights reserved.