You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com> on 2010/12/24 16:07:41 UTC
Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Using:
FBSD-7.x
p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.1_3
perl-5.8.9_3
mysql-server-5.0.90
I'm getting a lot of these error messages from the perl module Bayes.pm.
The SA archives or google shows very little useful about it. Can anyone
help? AFAIK, only started with upgrade to SA-3.3.
Dec 24 08:54:05 mail spamd[24172]: Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY
without explicit disconnect() of DBD::mysql::db handle bayes:127.0.0.1:3306
at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.9/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Bayes.pm
line 1516, <GEN140> line 2.
Thanks for any suggestions....
Jack
(^_^)
Happy trails,
Jack L. Stone
System Admin
Sage-american
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com>.
At 01:34 PM 12.27.2010 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:25:28 -0600
>"Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com> wrote:
>
>> >I don't think so. That message typically comes about when a DBI
>> >database handle goes out of scope without disconnect() having been
>> >called.
>
>> That was also one of my thoughts but noticed (as I recall) that the
>> Bayes.pm module has been the same code on that line for a while. It
>> does sound like a disconnect flaw, and I may experiment with adding a
>> disconnect on the offending line.
>
>Well, the line where the error gets reported might not be the real
>location of the problem. That's certainly where $self goes out of
>scope, but the caller should be hanging on to a reference to avoid the
>DBI handle's destruction.
>
>I tried reading the SpamAssassin code, but I gave up after a while.
>It's pretty convoluted. Makes me pine for the relative simplicity
>of the Sendmail source. :) [OUCH]
>
>Regards,
>
>David
>
David:
We're on the same page as I wondered what other snakes might bite me later
by tampering with that line. Don't think it would be fatal though to do
some tinkering....or not.
This is no doubt found in the logs of many others and hoped it would draw
attention to a qualified fix by an expert. OTOH, thought it might just be
my install although I've installed & configured versions going back several
years without the MySQL prob. SA has served me well.
Jack
(^_^)
Happy trails,
Jack L. Stone
System Admin
Sage-american
Re: Greylisting (was Re: Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback DBI
Mysql))
Posted by Daniel McDonald <da...@austinenergy.com>.
On 12/27/10 4:07 PM, "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:36:39 -0800
> Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>> The real question is, do you get viruses that would make it past SA?
>
> I can't answer that because we scan for viruses before SA. I would
> guess yes. It would be more efficient to scan for viruses after
> scanning for spam, even though we still do it the other way around.
I scan for viruses first, (actually second, after grey-listing) because
clamav with the unofficial signatures identifies a fair amount of spam, and
the non-virus findings are added to the spamassassin score...
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281
Re: Greylisting (was Re: Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback
DBI Mysql))
Posted by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com>.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:36:39 -0800
Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
[...]
> > We do not find virus-scanning before spam-scanning to be
> > effective. A tiny percentage of our mail is flagged as containing
> > a virus,
> That's subject to interpretation I think. I would guess that your
> LEGITIMATE mail is ALSO a tiny percentage of your total received
> mail. ;-)
No, not really. Here are the statistics for 30 days' worth of mail for
messages that made it past greylisting:
- About 600 000 non-spam messages
- About 530 000 spam or suspected-spam messages
- About 65 000 messages blocked for various reasons other than
content-filtering (on DNSBL, sender blacklisted by end-user, etc.)
- 774 viruses as detected by ClamAV
As you see, viruses make up a tiny percentage of mail volume.
Non-spam makes up about 50% of the post-greylisting volume
or about 20% of total volume including greylisting.
During that same period, about 2.4 million messages were greylisted, of
which just under 50 000 were retried correctly and made it past the
greylisting hurdle. Greylisting remains tremendously effective.
> The real question is, do you get viruses that would make it past SA?
I can't answer that because we scan for viruses before SA. I would
guess yes. It would be more efficient to scan for viruses after
scanning for spam, even though we still do it the other way around.
Regards,
David.
Re: Greylisting (was Re: Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback
DBI Mysql))
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
On 12/27/2010 12:42 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:37:00 -0800
> Ted Mittelstaedt<te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>> greylisting, though, is by far the best. But I have noticed an
>> increasing number of sites out there - and this is large sites - who
>> apparently are honked-off that people greylist, and they will bounce
>> delivery of mail that is issued an error 4xx in violation of the
>> standard. Off the top of my head I seem to remember seeing this from
>> several airline company mailers that send out the advertisements to
>> their frequent flyer members, and that send out electronic ticketing
>> receipts. Jerks!
>
> What you may be seeing is marginal SMTP client software that doesn't
> know how to handle a 4xx response to RCPT. There was even some
> commercial software that couldn't deal with this properly (Novell
> Groupwise, I believe, though it has long since been fixed in that
> product.)
>
> BTW, this is another reason we do our greylisting post-DATA. Although
> it's slower and uses more bandwidth, it does avoid problems with
> marginal SMTP clients and it does let us use the Subject: as part of
> the greylisting tuple, which greatly increases greylisting
> effectiveness.
>
> We do not find virus-scanning before spam-scanning to be effective. A
> tiny percentage of our mail is flagged as containing a virus,
That's subject to interpretation I think. I would guess that your
LEGITIMATE mail is ALSO a tiny percentage of your total received mail. ;-)
The real question is, do you get viruses that would make it past SA? We
do, for the simple reason that we have some users who regularly get mail
that is normally flagged as spam - and they WANT that mail - so we
list them in the exemption (all spam to) list. The virus filtering
makes sure that they don't get hosed down.
Of course, you can do virus scanning post-SA to capture these.
Ted
so it
> doesn't really reduce the amount of mail that would need to be
> spam-scanned.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
Greylisting (was Re: Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback DBI
Mysql))
Posted by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com>.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:37:00 -0800
Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
> greylisting, though, is by far the best. But I have noticed an
> increasing number of sites out there - and this is large sites - who
> apparently are honked-off that people greylist, and they will bounce
> delivery of mail that is issued an error 4xx in violation of the
> standard. Off the top of my head I seem to remember seeing this from
> several airline company mailers that send out the advertisements to
> their frequent flyer members, and that send out electronic ticketing
> receipts. Jerks!
What you may be seeing is marginal SMTP client software that doesn't
know how to handle a 4xx response to RCPT. There was even some
commercial software that couldn't deal with this properly (Novell
Groupwise, I believe, though it has long since been fixed in that
product.)
BTW, this is another reason we do our greylisting post-DATA. Although
it's slower and uses more bandwidth, it does avoid problems with
marginal SMTP clients and it does let us use the Subject: as part of
the greylisting tuple, which greatly increases greylisting
effectiveness.
We do not find virus-scanning before spam-scanning to be effective. A
tiny percentage of our mail is flagged as containing a virus, so it
doesn't really reduce the amount of mail that would need to be
spam-scanned.
Regards,
David.
Re: Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql)
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
On 12/27/2010 11:46 AM, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> At 02:26 PM 12.27.2010 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:16:23 -0800
>> Ted Mittelstaedt<te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Wall never envisioned the octopus monstrosity that Perl has
>>> become.
>>
>> Um.
>>
>> Just because you can write overly-complex slow Perl code doesn't mean that
>> all Perl code is necessarily overly-complex or slow.
>>
>>> Not that I am unhappy with the existence of SA but anyone who uses it
>>> must understand that an enormous amount of CPU power is wasted on SA
>>> merely due to the inefficiency of it being written in Perl.
>>
>> While Perl is part of the problem, a lot of the problem is SA itself
>> and some of it is simply the nature of content-based anti-spam
>> techniques... slinging around regexes, normalizing HTML, extracting
>> URLs sanely, extracting Bayes tokens, etc. is going to be slow no
>> matter how you do it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David.
>>
>
> In my case a very small percentage of mail actually reaches SA because of
> several filters in front of it. Sendmail, Regex-milter, Greylist-milter,
> and other milters catch most of the truly bad stuff, and then hands off
> finally to SA. Thus, my server load is not so bad now. It used to be heavy
> indeed before adding the front filters.
>
We also do clam-av. Yes I know most virus emitters are going to be
blacklisted and SA would catch them anyway but this gives us some
visibility as to how much of the incoming spam is actually viruses.
greylisting, though, is by far the best. But I have noticed an
increasing number of sites out there - and this is large sites - who
apparently are honked-off that people greylist, and they will bounce
delivery of mail that is issued an error 4xx in violation of the
standard. Off the top of my head I seem to remember seeing this from
several airline company mailers that send out the advertisements to
their frequent flyer members, and that send out electronic ticketing
receipts. Jerks!
Ted
Re: Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql)
Posted by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com>.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:46:34 -0600
"Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com> wrote:
> In my case a very small percentage of mail actually reaches SA
> because of several filters in front of it. Sendmail, Regex-milter,
> Greylist-milter, and other milters catch most of the truly bad stuff,
> and then hands off finally to SA. Thus, my server load is not so bad
> now. It used to be heavy indeed before adding the front filters.
We also use greylisting and other techniques, but we do everything
in Perl from MIMEDefang (including the greylisting).
Our average processing time is about 500ms. For messages that are
greylisted, the time is around 35ms. That's doing post-DATA
greylisting (because we greylist on the 4-tuple {sender, recipient,
IP, Subject}) implemented in Perl with the greylist data in
PostgreSQL. So Perl does not *have* to be slow.
Regards,
David.
Re: Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql)
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com>.
At 02:26 PM 12.27.2010 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:16:23 -0800
>Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>> Larry Wall never envisioned the octopus monstrosity that Perl has
>> become.
>
>Um.
>
>Just because you can write overly-complex slow Perl code doesn't mean that
>all Perl code is necessarily overly-complex or slow.
>
>> Not that I am unhappy with the existence of SA but anyone who uses it
>> must understand that an enormous amount of CPU power is wasted on SA
>> merely due to the inefficiency of it being written in Perl.
>
>While Perl is part of the problem, a lot of the problem is SA itself
>and some of it is simply the nature of content-based anti-spam
>techniques... slinging around regexes, normalizing HTML, extracting
>URLs sanely, extracting Bayes tokens, etc. is going to be slow no
>matter how you do it.
>
>Regards,
>
>David.
>
In my case a very small percentage of mail actually reaches SA because of
several filters in front of it. Sendmail, Regex-milter, Greylist-milter,
and other milters catch most of the truly bad stuff, and then hands off
finally to SA. Thus, my server load is not so bad now. It used to be heavy
indeed before adding the front filters.
Jack
(^_^)
Happy trails,
Jack L. Stone
System Admin
Sage-american
Anti-Perl rant (was Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql)
Posted by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com>.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:16:23 -0800
Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
> Larry Wall never envisioned the octopus monstrosity that Perl has
> become.
Um.
Just because you can write overly-complex slow Perl code doesn't mean that
all Perl code is necessarily overly-complex or slow.
> Not that I am unhappy with the existence of SA but anyone who uses it
> must understand that an enormous amount of CPU power is wasted on SA
> merely due to the inefficiency of it being written in Perl.
While Perl is part of the problem, a lot of the problem is SA itself
and some of it is simply the nature of content-based anti-spam
techniques... slinging around regexes, normalizing HTML, extracting
URLs sanely, extracting Bayes tokens, etc. is going to be slow no
matter how you do it.
Regards,
David.
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
On 12/27/2010 10:25 AM, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> At 12:54 PM 12.27.2010 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:46:39 -0500
>> Jason Bertoch<ja...@i6ix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dec 24 08:54:05 mail spamd[24172]: Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY
>>> without explicit disconnect() of DBD::mysql::db handle
>>> bayes:127.0.0.1:3306
>>> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.9/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Bayes.pm
>>> line 1516,<GEN140> line 2.
>>
>>> Sounds like a timeout with mysql.
>>
>> I don't think so. That message typically comes about when a DBI database
>> handle goes out of scope without disconnect() having been called.
>>
>> It's probably harmless, but it does indicate carelesness in the Perl
>> code.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David.
>>
>
> David:
>
> That was also one of my thoughts but noticed (as I recall) that the
> Bayes.pm module has been the same code on that line for a while.
That means absolutely nothing. Many cases I've seen in the past where a
module (like the DBI one) is written to ignore errors, then later on
error support is added (or debugging more like it) with the sudden
discovery of many flaws in many packages that use that module as a
dependency.
This is particularly the case with Perl. After all, Perl was originally
written for quick prototyping, with the idea that any program with real
permanence would be rewritten in a Real Man's language, ie: C or C++.
Larry Wall never envisioned the octopus monstrosity that Perl has become.
Not that I am unhappy with the existence of SA but anyone who uses it
must understand that an enormous amount of CPU power is wasted on SA
merely due to the inefficiency of it being written in Perl. SA today
would never have flown 10 years ago before the emergence of the
monster-high-power CPU's driven mainly by first person shoot-em-up games.
Anyway, back to business...
Ted
It does
> sound like a disconnect flaw, and I may experiment with adding a disconnect
> on the offending line.
>
> Thanks for the helpful input!
>
> Jack
>
> (^_^)
> Happy trails,
> Jack L. Stone
>
> System Admin
> Sage-american
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com>.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:25:28 -0600
"Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com> wrote:
> >I don't think so. That message typically comes about when a DBI
> >database handle goes out of scope without disconnect() having been
> >called.
> That was also one of my thoughts but noticed (as I recall) that the
> Bayes.pm module has been the same code on that line for a while. It
> does sound like a disconnect flaw, and I may experiment with adding a
> disconnect on the offending line.
Well, the line where the error gets reported might not be the real
location of the problem. That's certainly where $self goes out of
scope, but the caller should be hanging on to a reference to avoid the
DBI handle's destruction.
I tried reading the SpamAssassin code, but I gave up after a while.
It's pretty convoluted. Makes me pine for the relative simplicity
of the Sendmail source. :) [OUCH]
Regards,
David
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com>.
At 12:54 PM 12.27.2010 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:46:39 -0500
>Jason Bertoch <ja...@i6ix.com> wrote:
>
>> Dec 24 08:54:05 mail spamd[24172]: Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY
>> without explicit disconnect() of DBD::mysql::db handle
>> bayes:127.0.0.1:3306
>> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.9/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Bayes.pm
>> line 1516, <GEN140> line 2.
>
>> Sounds like a timeout with mysql.
>
>I don't think so. That message typically comes about when a DBI database
>handle goes out of scope without disconnect() having been called.
>
>It's probably harmless, but it does indicate carelesness in the Perl
>code.
>
>Regards,
>
>David.
>
David:
That was also one of my thoughts but noticed (as I recall) that the
Bayes.pm module has been the same code on that line for a while. It does
sound like a disconnect flaw, and I may experiment with adding a disconnect
on the offending line.
Thanks for the helpful input!
Jack
(^_^)
Happy trails,
Jack L. Stone
System Admin
Sage-american
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com>.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:46:39 -0500
Jason Bertoch <ja...@i6ix.com> wrote:
> Dec 24 08:54:05 mail spamd[24172]: Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY
> without explicit disconnect() of DBD::mysql::db handle
> bayes:127.0.0.1:3306
> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.9/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Bayes.pm
> line 1516, <GEN140> line 2.
> Sounds like a timeout with mysql.
I don't think so. That message typically comes about when a DBI database
handle goes out of scope without disconnect() having been called.
It's probably harmless, but it does indicate carelesness in the Perl
code.
Regards,
David.
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by Jason Bertoch <ja...@i6ix.com>.
Jack L. Stone wrote:
I'm getting a lot of these error messages from the perl module Bayes.pm.
The SA archives or google shows very little useful about it. Can anyone
help? AFAIK, only started with upgrade to SA-3.3.
Dec 24 08:54:05 mail spamd[24172]: Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY
without explicit disconnect() of DBD::mysql::db handle bayes:127.0.0.1:3306
at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.9/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Bayes.pm
line 1516, <GEN140> line 2.
Sounds like a timeout with mysql. Have you checked the health of the
database, expired tokens, overall size, memory, etc?
--
/Jason
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com>.
At 12:19 PM 12.27.2010 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>On 12/27/10 12:14 PM, Jack L. Stone wrote:
>> At 11:43 PM 12.26.2010 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>>
>> You must be really busy minding everyone's business.
>>
>> If you don't know an answer, then let things pass. The other members can
>> take care of themselves I suspect.
>>
>> Jack
>he is the moderator of this list and was trying to help you.
>
>you will get exactly what you paid for when you installed spamassassin.
>
>or, are you new to opensource software and support?
>
Michael Scheidell, CTO
I moderate lists as well which are global and very technical in science,
but would never admonish any member for asking a question unless it was
offensive. Don't think mine was.
Been using SA and Unix for many years which has nothing to do with my
question. I figured I should just ignore Karsten's useless reply. I could
see I wasn't going to get an answer. This whole thing is so minor but I
guess entertaining to some.
Forget I asked....
Jack
(^_^)
Happy trails,
Jack L. Stone
System Admin
Sage-american
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by Michael Scheidell <mi...@secnap.com>.
On 12/27/10 12:14 PM, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> At 11:43 PM 12.26.2010 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>
> You must be really busy minding everyone's business.
>
> If you don't know an answer, then let things pass. The other members can
> take care of themselves I suspect.
>
> Jack
he is the moderator of this list and was trying to help you.
you will get exactly what you paid for when you installed spamassassin.
or, are you new to opensource software and support?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
ISN: 1259*1300
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified SNORT Integrator
* 2008-9 Hot Company Award Winner, World Executive Alliance
* Five-Star Partner Program 2009, VARBusiness
* Best in Email Security,2010: Network Products Guide
* King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
______________________________________________________________________
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 11:14 -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> At 11:43 PM 12.26.2010 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > Guess I'm the only one with this issue or was it an ignorant question?
> >
> > Guess you're a little bit impatient, bumping your question after 24
> > hours, given the date and it being holiday season for quite a few folks
> > on this list... ;)
>
> You must be really busy minding everyone's business.
>
> If you don't know an answer, then let things pass. The other members can
> take care of themselves I suspect.
You could have read it as "no, I don't think that was an ignorant
question", answering your follow-up question -- not admonishing you in
any way. Unless that was purely rhetorical, and rather than getting it
answered, you really only meant to poke.
Anyway, thanks for eloquently showing off your attitude.
--
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; }}}
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On man 27 dec 2010 18:14:22 CET, "Jack L. Stone" wrote
> You must be really busy minding everyone's business.
yep, thats what maillists are for
> If you don't know an answer, then let things pass. The other members can
> take care of themselves I suspect.
and the answer is ?
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com>.
At 11:43 PM 12.26.2010 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 09:04 -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
>> At 09:07 AM 12.24.2010 -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
>
>> Guess I'm the only one with this issue or was it an ignorant question?
>
>Guess you're a little bit impatient, bumping your question after 24
>hours, given the date and it being holiday season for quite a few folks
>on this list... ;)
>
>
You must be really busy minding everyone's business.
If you don't know an answer, then let things pass. The other members can
take care of themselves I suspect.
Jack
(^_^)
Happy trails,
Jack L. Stone
System Admin
Sage-american
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 09:04 -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> At 09:07 AM 12.24.2010 -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> Guess I'm the only one with this issue or was it an ignorant question?
Guess you're a little bit impatient, bumping your question after 24
hours, given the date and it being holiday season for quite a few folks
on this list... ;)
--
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; }}}
Re: Issuing rollback DBI Mysql
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com>.
At 09:07 AM 12.24.2010 -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
Top post:
Guess I'm the only one with this issue or was it an ignorant question?
Jack
>Using:
>FBSD-7.x
>p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.1_3
>perl-5.8.9_3
>mysql-server-5.0.90
>
>I'm getting a lot of these error messages from the perl module Bayes.pm.
>The SA archives or google shows very little useful about it. Can anyone
>help? AFAIK, only started with upgrade to SA-3.3.
>
>Dec 24 08:54:05 mail spamd[24172]: Issuing rollback() due to DESTROY
>without explicit disconnect() of DBD::mysql::db handle bayes:127.0.0.1:3306
>at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.9/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Bayes.pm
>line 1516, <GEN140> line 2.
>
>Thanks for any suggestions....
>
>Jack
>
>(^_^)
>Happy trails,
>Jack L. Stone
>
>System Admin
>Sage-american
>
>
(^_^)
Happy trails,
Jack L. Stone
System Admin
Sage-american