On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:28, Sean Cardus wrote:
>> > An re2c bug, presumably? Is anyone having problems without using sa-
>> > compile?
>>
>> If I removed the compiled rule sets, everything works fine again...
>
> I've noticed that sa-update pulled in a new set of Sought rules this morning
> (ver
> > An re2c bug, presumably? Is anyone having problems without using sa-
> > compile?
>
> If I removed the compiled rule sets, everything works fine again...
I've noticed that sa-update pulled in a new set of Sought rules this morning
(version 320790507). I've run sa-compile over them again, re
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Sean Cardus wrote:
> > I've been seeing exactly the same behaviour off and on since Friday
> > last week. I'd not yet managed to narrow it down to a specific rule or
> > email, but your example triggers it every time on my i386 boxes.
>
> Here's a copy of an email
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 13:20 +0100, Adam Stephens wrote:
> __SEEK_1R0JFS
I can confirm that removing that test and recompiling eliminates my
segfaults. running re2c 0.12.0
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX
www.austinenergy.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:31:25PM +0100, Sean Cardus wrote:
> > An re2c bug, presumably? Is anyone having problems without using sa-
> > compile?
>
> If I removed the compiled rule sets, everything works fine again...
I was just about to report a similar problem when I came across this
thread.
> An re2c bug, presumably? Is anyone having problems without using sa-
> compile?
If I removed the compiled rule sets, everything works fine again...
Sean
Matt Elson wrote:
I dug around a bit and it seems
one specific body rule was causing the issue, namely:
body __SEEK_1R0JFS /\x{ff}\x{fe} \x{00} \x{00} \x{00}
\x{00}<\x{00}m\x{00}e\x{00}t\x{00}a\x{00}
\x{00}h\x{00}t\x{00}t\x{00}p\x{00}-\x{00}e\x{00}q\x{00}u\x{00}i\x{00}v\x{00}=\x{00}\'\x{00}R\x{
> I've been seeing exactly the same behaviour off and on since Friday
> last week. I'd not yet managed to narrow it down to a specific rule or
> email, but your example triggers it every time on my i386 boxes.
Here's a copy of an email that I've modified with the extra section which I'm
able to
Matthew Elson wrote:
> Justin Mason wrote:
>> hey Matt -- what version of re2c is installed?
>
> Knew I forgot something :P.
>
> re2c 0.13.2 was what was on all of the machines that had the issue -
> when I ran into the issue, the first thing I did was upgrade it to
> 0.13.5 on one of them; the
Justin Mason wrote:
hey Matt -- what version of re2c is installed?
Knew I forgot something :P.
re2c 0.13.2 was what was on all of the machines that had the issue -
when I ran into the issue, the first thing I did was upgrade it to
0.13.5 on one of them; the problem still occurred. The Debi
> > I stumbled upon an odd issue the other day that I'm having trouble
> > tracking down. Namely, a certain rule in the sought rule set, when
> > compiled for use with Rule2XSBody is causing the processing of *some*
> > emails to, well, never really end. Piping the mail through
> > spamassassin o
hey Matt -- what version of re2c is installed?
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 18:43, Matt Elson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I stumbled upon an odd issue the other day that I'm having trouble
> tracking down. Namely, a certain rule in the sought rule set, when
> compiled for use with Rule2XSBody is causing the
12 matches
Mail list logo
