Your message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006 02:11:05 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#206397: archivemail: Assertion error when dealing with bad
dates
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: archivemail
Version: 0.4.0-1
Severity: normal
When processing spam with tricksy sneaky headers, such as the following:
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 69 16:00:18 GMT
the following error message is produced:
[3008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] archivemail --delete Maildir/.spam
~
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/archivemail", line 968, in ?
main()
File "/usr/bin/archivemail", line 550, in main
archive(mailbox_path)
File "/usr/bin/archivemail", line 761, in archive
_archive_dir(mailbox_name, final_archive_name, "maildir")
File "/usr/bin/archivemail", line 877, in _archive_dir
if should_archive(msg):
File "/usr/bin/archivemail", line 675, in should_archive
old = is_too_old(time_message, options.days_old_max)
File "/usr/bin/archivemail", line 698, in is_too_old
assert(time_message > 0)
AssertionError
Rather than asserting (time_message > 0), perhaps it would be
better to treat messages from the previous epoch as having no Date header?
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux brittle 2.2.20 #1 Fri Jan 4 17:01:02 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages archivemail depends on:
ii python 2.1.3-3.2 An interactive object-oriented scr
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.4.3-1
I'm closing this bug.
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:38:49PM -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Checking the unpatched upstream source, I can neither trigger it with
> > the current archivemail 0.6.2 nor with 0.4.0, for which the bug was
> > reported. Anyone?
>
> Well, let's look at the upstream developer logs:
>
> http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/archivemail/trunk/archivemail.py?view=log
>
> In particular, the bug I reported was fixed in revision 55. Other
> bugs triggering on the same epoch problems were fixed in revisions 80,
> 82, and 89. I believe this bug is now fixed upstream.
Oh, thanks for looking that up, I didn't check the log because the
bug was unreproducible. You are right, apparently it was fixed in
archivemail 0.4.2[1]. It seems like Paul Rodger had a habit of fixing
Debian bugs and not communicating it. You're talking with upstream, by
the way. :-) I have just joined the team, though.
The log entry for r89 doesn't match the actual diff, that's weird.
But it suggests that it might be a change in Python's time.mktime() that
makes the bug unreproducible now, even with archivemail 0.4.0. Hmmm,
there seems to be no evidence of such a change in the Python
documentation...
Anyway, closing.
Nikolaus
[1] 0.4.2 was not packaged for Debian, so I'm closing for 0.4.3-1.
--- End Message ---
