https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6187
Justin Mason <j...@jmason.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |j...@jmason.org
--- Comment #5 from Justin Mason <j...@jmason.org> 2009-09-03 13:30:20 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> If the protocol specifies that at PING consists of a header and a body, then
> spamd should not send a PONG until the body has been sent (effectively waiting
> for the second $EOL before answering).
Yes, this was the intention of the protocol designer. (ie me ;)
Also see spamd/PROTOCOL, which is reasonably clear about it:
The first line from spamc is the command for spamd to execute (PROCESS a
message is the command in protocol<=1.3) followed by the protocol version.
There may be additional headers following the command, which are as yet
undefined. Servers should ignore these, and keep looking for headers which
they do support, or the "\r\n\r\n" end-of-headers marker.
> Of course, making spamd wait for the (normally empty) body might break
> existing
> third party clients if they send a PING without a body.
True. We need to take that into account somehow, if possible...
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
