[LINK] Tsunami Warning Test Message

[Scott Howard]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Tom Worthington <tom.worthington at tomw.net.au
> wrote:

> A potential problem also remains with the formatting of the tsunami
> warnings, in that they may be mistaken for Spam. Here is the spam report
> for this message:
>
[...]

> The "FH_DATE_PAST_20XX" spam rule appears to be incorrectly applied.
>

No, it's being correctly applied, in that the message does meet the
criteria for that particular SpamAssassin rule to fire.  It is however an
indication that the Barracuda system that's doing your anti-spam is
woefully out of date, and/or mis-configured as this specific rule should
have been disabled years ago.

Without this rule firing the message would have scored relatively low,
although there's still a few things they could improve on to increase
deliverability.

  Scott