Op 27-9-2018 om 11:42 schreef James:
On 25/09/2018 22:39, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Something mightily weird is going on at your end. It doesn't fail here (see below). First of all, what is your configuration (output from
dovecot -n)?You have dovecot.conf but...
$ dovecot -c dovecot.conf -n # 2.3.3.rc1 (14e4920d8): dovecot.conf # Pigeonhole version 0.5.2 (7704de5e) # OS: SunOS 5.11 i86pc # Hostname: mailhost doveconf: Warning: please set ssl_dh= /etc/opt/xxx/dovecot/dh.pem mail_debug = yes mail_gid = staff mail_location = maildir:/path/to/%d/%n/Maildir mail_uid = james managesieve_notify_capability = mailto managesieve_sieve_capability = fileinto reject envelope encoded-character vacation subaddress comparator-i;ascii-numeric relational regex imap4flags copy include variables body enotify environment mailbox date index ihave duplicate mime foreverypart extracttext postmaster_address = postmaster@domain.tld ssl_dh = # hidden, use -P to show it
Also, can you make a hex dump of the binary (using
sieve-dump -h <your-script-binary>.svbin).As said the svbin is identical to the one create by the previous version.
Comparing the dump: Block 0 differs because it has the source file name. Block 1 is identical Block 2 is identical. It is this block that is declared corrupt.
Finally, can you try to explicitly delete the binary (preferably after preserving it elsewhere) so that it is guaranteed to be created fresh?
I did each time.
## Success at my end:
Spot the difference...
Address Line Code 00000000: DEBUG BLOCK: 3 00000001: EXTENSIONS [1]: 00000002: vacation 00000004: 3: VACATION 00000007: 5: seconds: NUM 86400
Address Line Code 00000000: DEBUG BLOCK: 3 00000001: EXTENSIONS [1]: 00000002: vacation 00000004: 2: VACATION 00000007: 4: seconds: NUM 5 00000009: Binary is corrupt.
The line numbers differs and 86400 is read as 5. It is like it has forgotten the size of an integer or is confused about endianness. There is something strange, like an #if that guesses wrong. At least I have somewhere to start looking.
Thank you for checking at your end, I was worried the RC had introduced an error and your result suggests not. RCs are for testing and I am.
The number is stored as a chain of bytes of which the most significant bit indicates whether the next byte still belongs to the number. If this bit is somehow interpreted wrong, the first byte of this number would read as 5, thereby returning '5' as the result and ignoring subsequent bytes (causing corruption at the next item to read).
Since you're using SunOS, your compiler may be doing something funky. Which compiler is used anyway? Perhaps different versions for the Dovecot releases that do and don't work?
Does it help when you change the "> 0" at the following code position to "!= 0" ?
https://github.com/dovecot/pigeonhole/blob/master/src/lib-sieve/sieve-binary...
Regards,
Stephan.