https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6939
K <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |innocent_apple_sauce@hotmai | |l.com --- Comment #49 from K <[email protected]> --- The volatility of the discussion starts with this: (In reply to Karsten Bräckelmann from comment #1) > Kip, please do *not* report a single problem to multiple bug-trackers. > Usually, there is only one bug, not many. > Keep in mind this is reporting a bug. If you are unsure whether something is > a bug or not, or if you need help finding the root cause, please tend to the > various support ways (mailing lists, forums) of your distro, and possibly > also the products involved. A bugtracker is not a place for generic support. > > Closing RESOLVED INVALID, not a SA bug. First, it's ironic that Kip was right to report to multiple bug-trackers, considering the conclusion of the problem having contributions from multiple parties. Second, this reply is patronizing and unhelpful. It seems prematurely naive to immediately assume that a bug reporter is asking for "generic support" without actually looking into the bug or attempting to reproduce. I make this assumption because it isn't until comment #5 that we get something remotely helpful: (In reply to Karsten Bräckelmann from comment #5) > The error logged by syslog states failing to create a UNIX socket. By > default, both spamc and spamd are using TCP port 783, not a UNIX socket. > > The ps output in comment 0 shows the system-wide running spamd (pid 18498) > to listen on the default TCP 783, whereas the per-user spamd daemon (pid > 2789) is indeed using custom options to use a UNIX socket. > > What are the owner, group and mode of that socket? What group(s) is the user > 'kip' a member of? If this had been comment #2 instead of comment #5, this thread would probably not have gone in the direction it did. Another piece of irony here: (In reply to Karsten Bräckelmann from comment #46) > (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. The interesting part here is how Karsten didn't check Kip's background first before making the initial condescending assumption in comment #2. As the rest of the discussion will tell, Kip knows exactly what he's doing, to the point that he's provided a patch. If Karsten had done a background check on Kip before comment #2 or shown him enough respect to look into the problem, there would be no volatility in this discussion and the bug would have been quickly resolved. Pardon the repetition of my vocabulary, but as it stands, Karsten was the first to be dismissive, condescending/patronizing and unhelpful. I see no attitude in any of Kip's initial responses, and definitely find the tone of his later ones justified, if not too polite, considering Karsten's condescension. Is there a language barrier somewhere that is causing misinterpretation? It's pretty clear that Kip is just trying to contribute to improving SA. What I don't understand is the complete and total opposition to accepting that. Ego problems in real life need to be kept out of this. Nobody is saying you are less than you are. As Kip has mentioned multiple times, this is just code. Don't take it personally. Get over it. It's not about you, it's about working together to improve the software. Anything other than that is just a hindrance to progress in general. What's the point of having a bug tracker if not to make progress? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
