https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6515
--- Comment #4 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2010-11-23 09:42:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Surely that is an issue with the time_limit feature itself then rather than my > changes to spamd (which merely make things a bit nicer for the client and less > confusing for the user)? I guess if you want to go down this route of argument > you'd want to put big fat warnings on anything that uses the timeout code and > also make it return a 0 score or something like that. The current way of spamd > simply closing the connection on child timeout is not server-friendly, and the > current behaviour of spamd silently ignoring any time_limit in the config file > is not user-friendly First, I'm a little confused. The spamd time limit options are command line parameters. Is there documentation somewhere that leads you to believe you can specify them in a configuration file other than something like a sysconfig file that an init script interprets? Second, I would argue that amu response, positive, negative, zero, etc. if the child timeout is reached is invalid OTHER than a response that says the child timed out. Regards, KAM -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
