Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 86029

Summary: spamc eats mail if spamd encounters an error
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Owen Taylor <otaylor>
Component: spamassassinAssignee: Warren Togami <wtogami>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: oak, wtogami
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-06-08 18:50:49 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Owen Taylor 2003-03-12 17:33:57 UTC
[ spamc has been largely rewritten in spamassassin CVS 
  and is considerably better, but it still doesn't actually
  check the response code that spamd sends back ]

$rpm -q spamassassin

Things work very badly in 2.44-11.8 if spamd dies with a
protocol error on a message (see bug 86028). It returns
a 0 error status (so procmail thinks it succeeded) but
outputs a blank message.

Details of what goes wrong.

spamd's response is:

 SPAMD/1.0 76 Bad header line: (Content-length mismatch: 5768 vs. 5764)

Spamc (spamd/libspamc.c:message_filter())

 - Doesn't check the error code
 - Since the version is 1.0, assumes that no header lines
 - Compares the 0 additional bytes it gets to the unitialized
   expected_len variable, and quite likely concludes that
   evrything was OK.

Comment 1 Chip Turner 2003-03-15 16:20:44 UTC
can you test this with spamassassin-2.50-2.8.x?

Comment 2 Warren Togami 2004-02-29 06:22:14 UTC
*** Bug 88246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Warren Togami 2005-04-03 10:31:55 UTC
Owen, do you still see this problem with FC3 or FC4?  Or do you still care? 
Otherwise I'm closing these old bugs against ancient versions.

Comment 4 Owen Taylor 2005-04-03 12:40:38 UTC
I certainly don't stil have the test configuration around  ... it shouldn't
be that hard to do code inspection to see whether an error code returned from
spamd is checked or not. (If not, reporting the bug upstream and closing
this UPSTREAM is OK, otherwise it could be closed FIXED)

Comment 5 Warren Togami 2007-06-08 18:50:49 UTC
Closing old