Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> as i said, to my knowledge, i'm not using any custom headers and i
>> asked how i could know for sure as it's not clear to me how to check
>
> Ah, sorry, kind of forgot about that. Well, posting your cf files is one
> option. ;) Another one is to read the configuration and check back with
> the docs. [1] In particular, see Basic Message tagging Options.
>
> Anyway, just as I suspected in a previous post, your custom headers from
> local.cf:
> clear_headers
> add_header all Flag _YESNOCAPS_
> add_header all Report _REPORT_
>
> This might be relevant WRT to bug 3364 [2], it definitely matches the
> summary. Can you still reproduce these NaN scores, if you comment out
> the above options?
>
Hi Guenther,
You are right. I previously had another custom header in there with
_HITS_ but i removed it because i first thought this was causing the error.
As for cf's, my local.cf can be found here:
http://www.heimdallit.be/download/local.cf
The other cf's in there are init.pre, v310.pre, v312.pre, v320.pre and
65_debian.cf. None of which i put there but are installed standard by
the Debian package i suspect.
As for reproducing, see last part of this message.
> FWIW, your custom scores are "left overs from earlier configs".
>
> I assume the first blob of score adjustments are the (previously set)
> custom scores for which you've seen NaN results? That's quite a lot and
> appears to affect rules randomly.
Yes indeed but not all of them. I think i've tried for some 6 or 7
scores to get around the nan scores by putting my own score for them in
my local.cf. The rest is just a way of increasing the scores to assure
that spam message get a high enough score.
>>> A wild guess: Since the affected rule/score varies wildly, might the
>>> culprit by any chance be bad RAM?
>>>
>> Bad ram? I seriously doubt but i could test it with a live cd that has
>> the memtest program.
>
> I'd check that, yeah. Rule's scores are set to NaN randomly and
> widespread. Plus the other kind of scary warnings and issues you've
> mentioned in this thread...
Yup the behaviour seems inconsistent.
Anyway, i've done 2 more tests. First i retried and now the message is
flagged as spam but the MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE part isn't in there anymore
and thus no Nan.
When i comment the custom headers and try again, it's also flagged as
spam and MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE is also not in there anymore.
Regards,
Benedict
