On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 12:34 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 05:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> LATER: This morning I reran some failing examples after rebooting the
> test machine. No change, so I tried a few stripped-down runs, i.e. I
> started spamd via a test script that uses systemctl to start or stop it
> and then used "spamc <testmessage" to exercise it while I played round
> with spamc options. In the course of this I noticed a strange effect:
>
> The FIRST message after restarting spamd never has X-Spam headers, but
> the second and subsequent ones do have X-Spam headers.
>
> I'm running these versions:
>
> $ spamd --version
> SpamAssassin Server version 3.3.2
> running on Perl 5.18.2
> with SSL support (IO::Socket::SSL 1.955)
> with zlib support (Compress::Zlib 2.062)
> $ spamc --version
> SpamAssassin Client version 3.2.4
>
> Should the spamc/spamd version mismatch have any bad effects?
No, there should be absolutely no problems, since spamc/d are using a
protocol that hasn't even added features since 3.2, let alone changed in
an incompatible way.
It does indicate a real problem with your package management or custom
builds, though.
> The only SA package I have installed is spamassassin.i686 3.3.2-56.fc20
> which came from atrpms. This is odd, since all the uninstalled packages
> (spamass-milter, spamass-milter-postfix, spamassassin-FuzzyOcr,
> spamassassin-iXhash2, spambayes, spampd, spamprobe.i686) are from Fedore
> repositories as you'd expect. Removing and reinstalling the spamassassin
> package has had no effect.
>
> I'll take this up with RedHat next week and see if I can find out why
> they no longer provide the main spamassassin package in their
> repository.
A quick googlin' brings up spamassassin 3.3.2-18.fc20 for Fedora 20, in
a single package shipping both spamc and spamd in /usr/bin.
--
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; }}}
