https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6939
--- Comment #16 from Kip <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Karsten Bräckelmann from comment #15) > The patch does not fix the issue. The patch fixes the issue. I justed tested it and it works fine. > As-is, when invoked with the -U option > without the required argument, spamc > > (a) reports the issue to STDERR, How many people run spamc manually from the command line and observe stderr? It's typically invoked by some mail kind of mail client behind the scenes where that information would not be immediately visible. The standard place for it to log errors would be in /var/log/mail.err. > (b) dumps the Usage instructions to STDOUT, and Actually it didn't when I ran it. > (c) returns with exit code 64, EX_USAGE. Again, it didn't, hence the patch. If that happened, addrbuf.sun_path wouldn't have been empty when mail.err was written to. > It is not a SA bug, that the spamc calling process ignores all of that. It's both a SA and an Evolution bug. Get over it. > In particular ignoring the exit code is a no-go. The calling process should > have informed the user, without any need to go hunt in syslog files. See above. > $ spamc -U >> /dev/null; echo $? > Error in argument 1, char 2: argument required for option U > 64 > > The required_argument bit is not ignored. That's great that it worked for you, but as I've already pointed out multiple times, that wasn't replicated at my end. > > I wasn't talking about the bug. I was talking about you. > > The comment in question was added by you to launchpad issue #1178826 > at 21:05 UTC. My first appearance comment 1 was at 21:59 UTC, 50 minutes > later. Do you have aspergers? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
