On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 14:13 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Mark, how positive are you, that the Perl bug you filed is the real,
> > underlying issue? Seeing all these reports about effected systems, and
> > seemingly identical systems not effected...
>
> I'm certain this bug is the underlying issue. I picked debugging
> from where Matt drove it, and debugged it down to the perl level.
> I haven't noticed the problem because we are running perl 5.13.10
> on our mailer, which is unaffacted. The perl bug report turns out
> to be a duplicate of #8262, #27344 and #5475.
What I don't understand is, how only a small sub-set of (almost?)
identical systems could have been affected. See e.g. Michael's report on
the users list.
His report might need some clarification, I guess, poked him.
> Other unaffected systems apparently did not have any tflags=multiple
> rules compiled through re2c which would require a re-check on a lossy
> pattern match. Or maybe they did not have compiled rules enabled
> at all (loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Rule2XSBody).
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@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; }}}
