Topic: Mail with no Date header problem

[compsos]

Hi
Intel support system has in recent times had important emails sent to us rejected due to the date header. At the moment we have not got a copy of the email to review the header etc. But would think that Intel emails should be constructed OK. We have advised them as to why we are not receiving them.

Could this be an issue with "logging::logterse plugin" being over efficient? We could turn of the date inspection but it might increase the spam levels.

Is anyone else seeing this issue?

Code: [Select]

2009-04-23 09:36:38.028619500 10445 dispatching MAIL FROM:<apacsupport@mailbox.intel.com> SIZE=4390
2009-04-23 09:36:38.029170500 10445 full from_parameter: FROM:<apacsupport@mailbox.intel.com> SIZE=4390
2009-04-23 09:36:38.029761500 10445 from email address : [<apacsupport@mailbox.intel.com>]
2009-04-23 09:36:38.551451500 10445 getting mail from <apacsupport@mailbox.intel.com>
2009-04-23 09:36:38.551782500 10445 250 <apacsupport@mailbox.intel.com>, sender OK - how exciting to get mail from you!
2009-04-23 09:36:39.429932500 10445 logging::logterse plugin: ` 134.134.136.24  mga09.intel.com mga09.intel.com <apacsupport@mailbox.intel.com> <accounts@compsos.com.au>    check_basicheaders      901     Mail with no Date header not accepted here      msg denied before queued


[CharlieBrady]

Could this be an issue with "logging::logterse plugin" being over efficient?

If you think that is possible, that would be a "potential bug", wouldn't it? And you know what to do with those.

[compsos]

Thanks Charlie
No at first glance I was not considering it a bug, but I will raise one. Was enquiring if any other users have or are seeing similar issue and that it is just the "senders" causing the problem.

[chris burnat]

Thanks Charlie
No at first glance I was not considering it a bug, but I will raise one. Was enquiring if any other users have or are seeing similar issue and that it is just the "senders" causing the problem.

Bug has been raised:
http://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5186
Please follow-up in the Bugtracker.