Bug 86029 - spamc eats mail if spamd encounters an error
Summary: spamc eats mail if spamd encounters an error
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: spamassassin
Version: rawhide
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Warren Togami
QA Contact:
: 88246 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-03-12 17:33 UTC by Owen Taylor
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-06-08 18:50:49 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Owen Taylor 2003-03-12 17:33:57 UTC
[ spamc has been largely rewritten in spamassassin CVS 
  and is considerably better, but it still doesn't actually
  check the response code that spamd sends back ]

$rpm -q spamassassin

Things work very badly in 2.44-11.8 if spamd dies with a
protocol error on a message (see bug 86028). It returns
a 0 error status (so procmail thinks it succeeded) but
outputs a blank message.

Details of what goes wrong.

spamd's response is:

 SPAMD/1.0 76 Bad header line: (Content-length mismatch: 5768 vs. 5764)

Spamc (spamd/libspamc.c:message_filter())

 - Doesn't check the error code
 - Since the version is 1.0, assumes that no header lines
 - Compares the 0 additional bytes it gets to the unitialized
   expected_len variable, and quite likely concludes that
   evrything was OK.

Comment 1 Chip Turner 2003-03-15 16:20:44 UTC
can you test this with spamassassin-2.50-2.8.x?

Comment 2 Warren Togami 2004-02-29 06:22:14 UTC
*** Bug 88246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Warren Togami 2005-04-03 10:31:55 UTC
Owen, do you still see this problem with FC3 or FC4?  Or do you still care? 
Otherwise I'm closing these old bugs against ancient versions.

Comment 4 Owen Taylor 2005-04-03 12:40:38 UTC
I certainly don't stil have the test configuration around  ... it shouldn't
be that hard to do code inspection to see whether an error code returned from
spamd is checked or not. (If not, reporting the bug upstream and closing
this UPSTREAM is OK, otherwise it could be closed FIXED)

Comment 5 Warren Togami 2007-06-08 18:50:49 UTC
Closing old

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.