[24743] in SIPB bug reports

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

spam-inc bug

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Abbe Cohen Dvornik)
Tue Mar 22 10:15:27 2005

From abbe@MIT.EDU Tue Mar 22 15:15:27 2005
Return-Path: <abbe@MIT.EDU>
Delivered-To: bug-sipb-mtg@CHARON.mit.edu
Received: (qmail 14940 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2005 15:15:27 -0000
Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (18.7.7.80)
  by charon.mit.edu with SMTP; 22 Mar 2005 15:15:27 -0000
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103])
	by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j2MFFM5F011198
	for <bug-sipb@MIT.EDU>; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:15:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from multics.mit.edu (MULTICS.MIT.EDU [18.187.1.73])
	(authenticated bits=56)
        (User authenticated as abbe@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
	by outgoing.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id j2MFFE0b003390
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
	for <bug-sipb@mit.edu>; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:15:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from abbe@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9)
	id j2MFFDkv014820; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:15:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:15:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200503221515.j2MFFDkv014820@multics.mit.edu>
From: Abbe Cohen Dvornik <abbe@alum.MIT.EDU>
To: bug-sipb@MIT.EDU
Subject: spam-inc bug
X-Spam-Score: -4.9
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42


If the spam-inc script (/mit/sipb/arch/sun4x_59/bin/spam-inc) finds
 more than 998 messages, the refile +spamfolder in the script will
 fail, and the spam and non-spam will both remain in the inbox.

This is because refile and rmm cannot handle more than 998 messages
 (don't ask me why.)

I wasn't paying too much attention when this happened, but it looked
to me like all of the output from the script looked perfectly normal,
so I didn't even realize it until noticing that 90% of my new mail was
spam and was flagged as spam.  In manually refiling it with pick, I 
got the "more than 998 messages" error message for refile and realized
that it was probably the suspect.

I haven't looked over the script other than verifying that it is using
refile, but someone might want to investigate.

--Abbe

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post