On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 16:20 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > Rounding issues? This one added by SA itself, unlike the above?
> > IIRC, there is *no* rounding (up) by SA, which caused confusion on the
> > users list before. So, did something else round up the value for the
> > other headers above? Hmm, *and* decided about the spam status "yes"...?
>
> If you manually add up the rules below, you get 6.5. So looking for
> rounding issues was my the next step. In short, here's the bug:
No, very unlikely you get 6.5 exactly. In particular, because there are
two rules scoring 0.0, which already is after per-score rounding for the
report. Hence me asking for the exact scores.
> spamc called with parameter -R is printing the report with
> 6.5/6.5
> Content analysis details: (6.4 points, 6.5 required)
[...]
> -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
A good alternative to spamc for such testing is spamassassin with an
explicit --cf="use_auto_whitelist 0" option. :)
> OK, so long and short, this is bug 2607 rearing it's head in spamd.
>
> I've found the cause of the issue and the fix. Will open a bug in
> bugzilla and address this issue further there.
Without reading the patch, which score and result is actually correct?
And what is the exact score?
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
