On Tuesday 03 February 2004 03:22 am, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Ola Thoresen wrote:
> > I have captured several messages, and sent them to Thomas and Nigel.
> > This seems to be an issue with some messages with attachments of
> > "Content-type: application/mac-binhex40;"
>
> I can confirm this
Ola Thoresen wrote:
I have captured several messages, and sent them to Thomas and Nigel.
This seems to be an issue with some messages with attachments of
"Content-type: application/mac-binhex40;"
I can confirm this and I can confirm too that thomas' patch fixes the
problem here.
Stefan
-
I have captured several messages, and sent them to Thomas and Nigel.
This seems to be an issue with some messages with attachments of
"Content-type: application/mac-binhex40;"
Rgds.
Ola Thoresen
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCo
Franco Gasperino wrote:
On Monday 02 February 2004 02:21 am, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
ok after setting up a complicated testbed I managed to capture a message
which results in a 2GB(!) memoryallocation of the latest snapshot
02012004 in less then 3 seconds ...
unfortunatly I'm unable to forward
On Monday 02 February 2004 02:21 am, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>
> ok after setting up a complicated testbed I managed to capture a message
> which results in a 2GB(!) memoryallocation of the latest snapshot
> 02012004 in less then 3 seconds ...
> unfortunatly I'm unable to forward the offending
On Monday 02 Feb 2004 10:21 am, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> unfortunatly I'm unable to forward the offending message (confidental
> information of a costumer)
Can't you use the information to handcraft a message that reproduces the
issue but doesn't contain confidential information? That is wha
Ola Thoresen wrote:
typically our mailrelays do run out of memory(1GB physical and 2Gb swap)
after a few (maybe 10 to 15) minutes with the snapshots 20040113 and
20040119 under load
We see this problem as well.
On a couple of servers (Fedora Core 1, kernel 2.4.22-1.2149.nptl) with
reasonably hi
On Sunday 01 February 2004 12:35 pm, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 07:15:50 -0800
>
> Matthew Trent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (sent with the wrong From the first time)
> >
> > On Sunday 01 February 2004 12:44 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> > > Are you running clamav-milter ? Do you have en
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 07:15:50 -0800
Matthew Trent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (sent with the wrong From the first time)
>
> On Sunday 01 February 2004 12:44 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> > Are you running clamav-milter ? Do you have enabled ScanMail in
> > clamav.conf ?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tomasz
(sent with the wrong From the first time)
On Sunday 01 February 2004 12:44 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> Are you running clamav-milter ? Do you have enabled ScanMail in
> clamav.conf ?
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Kojm
No milter; I'm running Exim+Exiscan, and ScanMail is enabled.
Feb 1 07:05:44 mail2
(sent with the wrong From the first time again...)
On Sunday 01 February 2004 2:44 am, Thomas Lamy wrote:
> Could you check clamd's memory consumption before and after the check,
> and quarantine mails which cause more than 10% memory increase? Would be
> _really_ helpful.
>
> Thomas
It's been a
On Sunday 01 February 2004 4:06 am, Ola Thoresen wrote:
> Sun, 01 Feb 2004 at 10:54 GMT Thomas Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Could you check clamd's memory consumption before and after the check,
> > and quarantine mails which cause more than 10% memory increase? Would be
> > _really_ helpfu
(sent first with wrong "From:" address, so it is waiting for moderator.
Just resending now. Moderators can delete my waiting message)
Sun, 01 Feb 2004 at 12:20 GMT Ola Thoresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> As soon as I see this again, I will try to isolate the last "few" mails
> and see if I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[Setting follow-up to clamav-devel]
Ola Thoresen wrote:
| Sun, 01 Feb 2004 at 10:54 GMT Thomas Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
|
|
|>Could you check clamd's memory consumption before and after the check,
|>and quarantine mails which cause more than 10%
Sun, 01 Feb 2004 at 10:54 GMT Thomas Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Could you check clamd's memory consumption before and after the check,
> and quarantine mails which cause more than 10% memory increase? Would be
> _really_ helpful.
>
clamd has now been running fine since I started it in th
Ola Thoresen wrote:
Sun, 01 Feb 2004 at 09:01 GMT Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
We see this problem as well.
On a couple of servers (Fedora Core 1, kernel 2.4.22-1.2149.nptl)
with reasonably high load - 10 - 50 mails/second, clamd will run
happily, using about 12 MB RAM, before it jumps to
Sun, 01 Feb 2004 at 09:01 GMT Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>> > We see this problem as well.
>> > On a couple of servers (Fedora Core 1, kernel 2.4.22-1.2149.nptl)
>> > with reasonably high load - 10 - 50 mails/second, clamd will run
>> > happily, using about 12 MB RAM, before it jumps
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:32:58 -0800
Matthew Trent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We see this problem as well.
> > On a couple of servers (Fedora Core 1, kernel 2.4.22-1.2149.nptl)
> > with reasonably high load - 10 - 50 mails/second, clamd will run
> > happily, using about 12 MB RAM, before it jump
On Saturday 31 January 2004 3:32 pm, Matthew Trent wrote:
> A hearty "me too" on this. I was just going to report it as well since both
> my mail servers simultaneously died due to clamd eating all available
> memory. I saw the OOM killer had been at work, but both systems were pretty
> much locked
On Saturday 31 January 2004 02:16 pm, Ola Thoresen wrote:
>
>
> > typically our mailrelays do run out of memory(1GB physical and 2Gb swap)
> > after a few (maybe 10 to 15) minutes with the snapshots 20040113 and
> > 20040119 under load
>
> We see this problem as well.
> On a couple of servers (Fed
> typically our mailrelays do run out of memory(1GB physical and 2Gb swap)
> after a few (maybe 10 to 15) minutes with the snapshots 20040113 and
> 20040119 under load
We see this problem as well.
On a couple of servers (Fedora Core 1, kernel 2.4.22-1.2149.nptl) with
reasonably high load - 10 -
21 matches
Mail list logo
