https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6939
Kip <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID |--- --- Comment #4 from Kip <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Karsten Bräckelmann from comment #3) > That bug is filed against the "evolution" package in Ubuntu 13.04. So then just fix it and replace it with SA...Done already... > The upstream bug-tracker for Evolution is https://bugzilla.gnome.org > Product Evolution, Component Plugins (which is where the spam filter > integration lives). See above. > My answer was constructive, in telling you where to head next for support. Use your common sense. Just looking at the console output you can see that the error is being raised in spamc process. Even if the OP associated it with Evolution, you could have simply commented on what you knew they had intended. > Moreover, I did tell you why I believe it is not a SA bug. (Note the subtle > difference in your and my phrase. I did not say "not a bug", but "not a SA > bug".) The first sentence of my comment 1 provided the reasoning for > closing the bug report in this bug-tracker. > > According to your original report comment 0, the bug did not happen with > Ubuntu 12.04. It does happen with Ubuntu 13.04 after a fresh install. > However, *both* versions are shipping the same SA upstream version 3.3.2. Great, that's still not helpful. > It should be easy to understand that there is no code change in SA. Again, that's still not helpful. > There has been a plethora of changes in Ubuntu in general, though, as well > as major parts of the Linux kernel, GNOME, Evolution, Perl. Possibly even in > the Ubuntu provided packages with custom patches. > > And since this is a fresh install, there could even be missing dependencies, > or configuration changes -- including really low-level config like enabling > SELinux. That could well be, and if I had written spamc, I would have issued a more useful error message even if it was missing a dependency. > (FWIW, I am not yelling there, neither emphasizing "invalid", which is just > the less friendly default way of saying "not a bug". These parts are > uppercase, because that's how they are referred to in bugzilla. The case, as > well as always clearly stating status changes is how I got used to during > many years of GNOME bugsquad participation.) I'm not worried about it. I'm more concerned with the possible bug. If you don't have an answer why this is happening, that is ok, but just wait for someone who does. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
