Mailing List Archive

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From skunk@iskunk.org 2004-05-09 12:24 -------
Created an attachment (id=1942)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=1942&action=view)
Mailbox of nan-bug-producing spam messages

All the messages in this mailbox file produce the bug in question. They were
all re-tagged in a recent test run using the attached user_prefs file and SA
2.63.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364

jm@jmason.org changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |3208
nThis| |
Target Milestone|3.1.0 |3.0.0



------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2004-05-12 21:24 -------
odd. adding to 3.0.0 queue



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From felicity@kluge.net 2004-05-19 15:11 -------
can't reproduce this on my boxes, fyi.

can you give some details about your environment? perl version, platform, etc? do the default headers
work ok?

for me: perl 5.6.1, Linux and perl 5.8.1RC3, Mac OS X.

Looking at perlop:

perl -le '$a = NaN; print "No NaN support here" if $a == $a'
perl -le '$a = NaN; print "NaN support here" if $a != $a'

My Linux box says it's supported, Mac OS X says it's not, so this should be reproducable on the Linux
side, in theory.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From skunk@iskunk.org 2004-05-20 21:35 -------
This is on an x86 Debian Linux system, current "testing" rev; Perl v5.8.3 and
negative (I repeat, negative!) on the NaN support. The default X-Spam-Status
header---as obtained by commenting out the last three lines of the attached
user_prefs file---works perfectly every time.

(The setup I have here is quite plain-vanilla---Perl and all the system
libraries are untouched Debian packages. I can only hope, of course, that the
problem doesn't relate to any Debian-specific patches.)



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From felicity@kluge.net 2004-05-20 21:56 -------
just for another data point, I took the 5.8.4 install on my Linux box (RH ES 3 update 2 BTW)... it says
NaN isn't supported (must be a 5.8 thing), but both 2.63 and 3.0 have no problem.

I'm willing to get on and do some debugging if I can get access to the machine, btw.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2004-05-25 19:34 -------
could be a locale thing. suggest we drop this from the 3.0.0 blocker unless
anyone can reproduce it...



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From felicity@kluge.net 2004-05-25 22:46 -------
> could be a locale thing. suggest we drop this from the 3.0.0 blocker unless
> anyone can reproduce it...

I need to arrange a time with Daniel to get access to the machine to do debugging. Unfortunately,
work has been sucking up absolutely all my time recently, so I haven't even had a chance to respond to
talk about scheduling a time... Sorry Daniel. :|



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib@msquadrat.de 2004-05-26 12:40 -------
Daniel: Does this happen only for spam messages? If so, does it start to
happen only for ham if you swap the two add_header lines in your config file?
(Just poking around.)

Theo: You seem to know a bit about this NaN stuff, is it maybe related to the
usage of sprintf()?



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364





------- Additional Comments From felicity@kluge.net 2004-05-26 12:44 -------
Subject: Re: Use of customized header yields "nan" for _HITS_ variable

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:40:17PM -0700, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote:
> Theo: You seem to know a bit about this NaN stuff, is it maybe related to the
> usage of sprintf()?

Actually I know almost nothing about NaN. Just what I've picked up doing
google and POD spelunking. But I figure if I can reproduce the problem,
I can debug the problem, which is a step ahead of where we are now. ;)





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3364

skunk@iskunk.org changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME



------- Additional Comments From skunk@iskunk.org 2004-05-27 00:22 -------
Gentlemen, I have bad (good) news:

I have had absolutely no luck in reproducing this bug on other Linux systems,
and what is more, it would not recur in a separate installation of SA _on the
same system_ where the original bug occurred.

Investigating this further, I removed the Debian SA package, and all traces
thereof, and reinstalled it again. Lo and behold, the "nan" behavior was no
more. I re-ran my entire spam corpus through SA, and not one was processed
incorrectly.

It would appear that the problem is specific to the Debian packaging of SA, and
even more, the "bug" turns up only when the package has gone through some
particular upgrade path (as opposed to being freshly installed). Maybe one file
was from an older package revision, maybe a configuration file wasn't updated
correctly,... it could be any number of things.

In light of this, I have resolved this bug as WORKSFORME, and apologize
sincerely for the dead end it has produced. If the problem crops up again, I'll
be more careful to rule out packaging issues, and return here to reopen the bug.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.