https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6939
--- Comment #84 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> --- > > Did you ever read at least the man-pages? (Beware, rhetorical question.) > > In that case, asking me whether spamc should check the validity of the TCP > connection is a rhetorical question. My OP has nothing to do with TCP > connections in any case. Nah, I asked if you ever read the spamc man-page. Did you? In any case, checking for the validity of the process on the other side of the pipe, is and must be done after consuming STDIN. Your original report comment 0 has indeed nothing to do with TCP. But that quote is not about comment 0, but your comment 81, where you actively encourage checking TCP. If that is not part of your report, then please refrain from arguing about TCP here. This report is about tracking the bug you reported. If you want to extend your report to TCP, please file a new report. > > I never called you a liar. Explicitly. Maybe implicitly, granted, but then > > again my question stands -- which comment are you referring to? > > If I gave you a comment number (again), you'd denounce it at worst, or > simply keep pushing the goal posts at best. I'm not your bibtex. I asked more than once. I have more than your pet-peeve bug of the week to worry about. I am, however, one of the few actively contributing to this project. Which you are not. So, if you are asked for a simple positive integer number less than 80, to clarify your "I mentioned it before" whining, it should be really easy for you to add here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
