https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6939
--- Comment #46 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Kip from comment #39) > > Please feel free to move the more general discussion parts to the dev list. > > I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how an issue tracker works. Quite a bold statement without any check on my background. (In reply to VR from comment #43) > Also, I just ran `echo -n | spamc -U ""; echo $?`. The exit code was 0. This > is a bug, because it implies there is no error, when there is. Nope, it is not. *sigh* It seems some of the "test-cases" added here by all of us are partially using spamc global configuration that affects the test. >From the spamc man-page about EXIT CODES: "By default, spamc will use the 'safe fallback' error recovery method. That means, it will always exit with an exit code if 0, even if an error was encountered. If any error occurrs, it will simply pass through the unaltered message." With the -x, --no-safe-fallback option set, for the given test-cases, spamc will return 0 *only* with at least one byte on STDIN and without the erroneous -U "". It will complain with exit code 69 or 74 in any other mentioned test-case. This is the documented and desired (read: agreed upon to be default) behavior. If anyone desires something else, the man-page advices him how to set global spamc configuration and change it to his heart's content. Test-cases provided to show spamc falsely reporting "no error", whereas it allegedly should have, are based on not taking the complete documentation and default settings into account. Please feel free to not simply take my word for it, but actually try it yourself. The original report comment 0 does not describe a SA bug. This bug report is correctly RESOLVED INVALID. Please refrain from adding further comments here, unless you have something substantial and new to add to this report. Feel free to move any further discussion to the dev list. Bugzilla is not an appropriate place for this type of discussions and arguing. VR, with all due respect: Your bugzilla account has been created on 2013-05-29 22:36:50 UTC, just minutes before your first comment 40 at 22:50:57 UTC. You have never been subscribed with this account's address to the SA dev@ list, either, so you didn't get the on-list bug mail. Please, enlighten us who you are, or how you noticed this report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
