[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SA 3.2.3 × Mimedefang from Etch



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 16-11-2007 17:36, Slavek Banko wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> After update SA to 3.2.3, arisen problem with Mimedefang (from Etch):
> 
> mimedefang-multiplexor[6722]: Slave 3 stderr: Use of uninitialized value 
> in substitution (s///) at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Util.pm line 
> 621.
> mimedefang-multiplexor[6722]: Slave 3 stderr: Use of uninitialized value 
> in transliteration (tr///) at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Util.pm 
> line 622.
> mimedefang-multiplexor[6722]: Slave 3 stderr: Use of uninitialized value 
> in length at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Util.pm line 623.
> mimedefang-multiplexor[6722]: Slave 3 stderr: seek() on closed filehandle 
> $tmpfile at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm line 273.
> mimedefang-multiplexor[6722]: Slave 3 stderr: readline() on closed 
> filehandle $tmpfile at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm 
> line 274.
> 
> And files .spamassasin*tmp in /tmp are not deleted. See: 
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5444

	If I understood correct, the #5444 above is caused by the use
of MIMEDefang, or is it a general problem with SA 3.2.3 from Volatile
(even if you are not using MIMEDefang)?


> Please, is possible to add new Mimedefang version to Volatile?

	Mmimedefang maintainer is the one that could give us
some info about this, I'm cc:ing him. Christoph, do you think
it is possible to check the above and if confirmed provide a
fixed package for Volatile?

	http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5444#c14


	Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHQPMbCjAO0JDlykYRAgUfAJwKereQ694qXeuSRJ1FvYr5vsdUsgCgxCeI
putWf0DmUU1SVEhq1r8xxCc=
=rfy5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: