https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6939
--- Comment #72 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> --- > > You failed to make your point (again). You failed to provide even the > > tiniest bit of evidence. > > I think there is definitely a language barrier at work here. In my usage of > the language in this context, a quantity of over 400 is not small. There is no language barrier, if you do speak English. In terms of hanging processes, 400 is not small. Agreed. Though that is only what you claim. You did not show even a single line of output. You snipped every single line that could stand as a hint (evidence not yet required). > > An apparently hanging spamc process pretty much is possible only under one > > particular circumstance -- an open STDIN to the calling process, which does > > not pipe data but keep it open idle. Exactly the same as > > > > $ cat > > $ cat "" ; echo $? You are not seriously trying to sneak that in, are you? In your example, 'cat' does not listen on STDIN but tries to open the given file named empty string. > (In reply to John Hardin from comment #70) > Thanks John. I'll give that a try next time I see them hanging. What do you mean, next time you see them hanging? According to your claims, the patch attachment 5144 fixes the issue. And you applied it locally. Thus, according to your claims, you will never see them hanging again. But hey, even better. We got a way to reproduce the issue. Revert your own patch. Then send yourself a message. Hanging process right there, if your claim is correct. Extra points for 400 hanging processes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
