Trog wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 12:50, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>>to a specific piece of mail. The thread timeout on clamd is set to 300
>>seconds, so I presume the offending mail would have arrived at around
>>11:07:31. There are 4 possible candidate messages that were timestamped
>>at 11:07:30,
On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 12:50, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> I'm only using it to scan mail, and the filter is set up such that when
> it dies, sendmail just bypasses it. The message in question will have
> been delivered. It's not immediately obvious to me how I can connect the
> log message:-
>
> Feb 20
Trog wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 11:49, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Just a quick note to the list to point out that the recent changes
>>appear not to have fixed the longstanding problem with clamav-milter's
>>connections to clamd dying and then gradually growing the process list.
>>
>
>
On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 11:49, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a quick note to the list to point out that the recent changes
> appear not to have fixed the longstanding problem with clamav-milter's
> connections to clamd dying and then gradually growing the process list.
>
And the clamd logs s
Hi,
Just a quick note to the list to point out that the recent changes
appear not to have fixed the longstanding problem with clamav-milter's
connections to clamd dying and then gradually growing the process list.
I removed clamav from my mail setup a couple of weeks ago due to this,
but put yest
