On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 19:25 -0500, Dan Grossman wrote: > On 2011-03-21 at 14:30, guent...@rudersport.de wrote to > users@spamassassin....:
> > Are you sure you are suffering from this issue, then? > > Pretty sure. It first appeared only after the latest rules update and > definitely occurs on emails matching the PILL rules. SA spikes to 99% > of CPU and sits there for a while. CPU spikes, even taking a while, does not necessarily mean it is the same issue. Even though likely, cause the REs are simple enough to not generate lots of backtracking. Hrm. :/ > > What exactly did you comment out, and where? > > I commented out [...] > #tflags __PILL_PRICE_1 ... > #tflags __PILL_PRICE_2 ... > #tflags __PILL_PRICE_3 ... That should have done it. Most weird. You absolutely sure you're not using compiled rules? And really, only using a bare 'spamassassin' in your procmail recipes? (Though spamc/d still would be better. ;) You also did not mention *where* you commented them out. It might be possible some other dir took precedence, and whatever you commented is not even been used by SA. Like /usr/share vs /var/lib by default. > > Anyway, does the easier trick mentioned in bug 6558 [1] comment 3 fix > > it? It really should. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558 > > That does seem to fix the problem. Thanks! Ah, goody. :) -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
