https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6939
--- Comment #73 from Kip <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Karsten Bräckelmann from comment #72) > In terms of hanging processes, 400 is not small. Agreed. Though that is only > what you claim. You did not show even a single line of output. You snipped > every single line that could stand as a hint (evidence not yet required). Even if I had pasted it without cleaning it up, you would have then gone on to say that it was fabricated. > You are not seriously trying to sneak that in, are you? In your example, > 'cat' does not listen on STDIN but tries to open the given file named empty > string. Yes, just like the socket file parameter to spamc. > What do you mean, next time you see them hanging? > > According to your claims, the patch attachment 5144 [details] fixes the > issue. And you applied it locally. Thus, according to your claims, you will > never see them hanging again. Correct, except I wasn't running my patched binary when I captured the output that I did. > Extra points for 400 hanging processes. Karsten, go play in the traffic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
