Jump to content

got sigalarm, taking too long to process, aborted.


spiralocean

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to report this spam:

http://mailsc.spamcop.net/sc?id=z577608918...539ed832848e6cz

And get the error message:

got sigalarm, taking too long to process, aborted.

I've tried waiting, reloading, then processing other spam, then clicking on unreported spam and get the same error message for this one spam.

Is there something I am doing incorrectly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I encountered the same problem this afternoon. One particular spam that had been forwarded to spamcop hung in the parser repeatedly, ending with the same sigalarm error message. When I pasted it into the spamcop window, however, the parser did not delay or hang, but gave the message that the spammer url could not be resolved. I pasted the domain name alone into spamcop and also did a traceroute on it, confirming that it was in fact unresolvable. I forwarded the spamcop id to Don.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there something I am doing incorrectly?

Nope, you've done it all according to plan. This spam has been specially crafted <g> to get this result. Actually, it resurface a bug that I thought had been resolved a few years back ... so, yes, this one needs to end up in Julian's hands.

Check the last IP on the X-SpamCop-Checked: line .. which is normally the last IP processed before deciding on the injection point ... look at where that "IP" came from .... InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 ... ooops .... the multi-threading thing has one set of tasks doing a look up on that last "IP" .. though noting that the last "seen" parse result was on 32.76.216.208 .... that last look-up is what caused the alarm, when (in my opinion) that IP should already be in a list of IPs not to be played with .... So as stated, there are a couple of things for Julian to ponder over and change ..... and either the Deputies or the deputy_samples (though not meeting that definition) address are on that path (am not sure why Don was chosen by ewv)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Yeow, it's really bad today!  Something is really wrong.

14727[/snapback]

Yes, for the first time had the joy of a load of sigalarm warnings today. I took the opportunity to drink a coffee and by the time I'd finished everything went through OK.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed that there is an issue, newsgroups are also ablaze .. Julian has some samples, but noting once again, that side of the problem is still an issue .... bitching and complaining that something happened to the parse is one thing, but the lack of specific data, like a Tracking URL doesn't help finding a solution.

That said, let me repeat, there is one Julian ... care to take a stab at how many spammers there are out there, how many of them work togther, how many are monitoring here and the newsgroups, how many of them know what the issue was a few days ago, how many have been working to make the problem worse ....???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed that there is an issue, newsgroups are also ablaze .. Julian has some samples, but noting once again, that side of the problem is still an issue .... bitching and complaining that something happened to the parse is one thing, but the lack of specific data, like a Tracking URL doesn't help finding a solution.

<snip>

14736[/snapback]

...It appeared from my experience over the past couple of days that this isn't related to content of spam but rather a server or network problem. If I posted tracking URLs for which SigAlarm errors occurred, I'd basically be posting a tracking URL for every one of the spam I've submitted.... :) <g>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha ... in general, the last batch seemed to be pointed towards China based domains and registrars ... but, today, (again, shooting in the dark, as most complaints haven't posted a Tracking URL, so haven't seen any specifics myself) it does seem to have branched out a bit ... There's a fair bit of talk about re-submitting and it goes through, which goes back to a bit of the cache issue .. at first parse, look-up times out, but datat does show up in time for the second try ... although this isn't a 100% thing either ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no doubt that Julian's been on it, but would have to guess that we're back to if/when he says something to someone, and that someone makes that fact known ... else it's the usual 'problem just got fixed' and Julian moved on to the next thing on his list <g>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...