On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:00 +0200, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > 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?
> As for reproducing, see last part of this message.
> >>> 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.
Hold on. That the very same message as you checked before? How the...
can a static rule like MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE vanish from the result? It
should be 100% consistent reproducible. If something like this matches
randomly, this is another hint for data in memory to be changing.
Hmm, any chance there are multiple (old?) SA installations rotting on
your system?
As for the message being flagged as spam, that doesn't appear to be much
of a surprise. With Mark's patch in place, any occurrence of NaN should
not invalidate the total score.
> 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.
That's not reproducing. :)
The question is not about a single run, but if you get the NaN warning
for any rule, with any message. Please keep the header options commented
out (restart spamd, if you use it) and then watch your results. Do you
still get NaN warnings for rules?
No, we can't proof the absence. Based on the frequency this used to
happen, it might take a while to be confident that the issue doesn't
occur without custom headers.
guenther -- this is a nick only ;)
--
char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
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; }}}
