[Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-24 Thread taltos-qs
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:16:16 +1200, Jason Haar wrote: > Sorry, but I don't want to see another 30K of perl added for such a simple > thing. Don't forget, EACH instance of Q-S would have to load that 30K worth > of code - just to get around a problem with find. (that's why I'd rather fork > a stand

Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-24 Thread Jason Haar
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 01:55:30AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here is an updated version of my perl program to handle the find cleanup > parts of qmail-scanner-queue.pl -z. The first version, if the > /var/spool/qmailscan directory had not been updated in a day, went ahead > and deleted

[Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-23 Thread taltos-qs
Here is an updated version of my perl program to handle the find cleanup parts of qmail-scanner-queue.pl -z. The first version, if the /var/spool/qmailscan directory had not been updated in a day, went ahead and deleted it as well. #!/usr/bin/perl # This program will remove all files

[Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-16 Thread taltos-qs
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:03:17AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Doing without -path, however, is a little clunky. > > find /var/spool/qmailscan -type f \( ! -name '*.log' ! -name '*.txt' ! > -name '*.db' \) -mtime +1 -print |egrep -v "quarantine/|archives/" > | xargs /usr/bin/rm -f H

[Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-16 Thread taltos-qs
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 at 09:26:04 +1200, Jason Haar wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:15:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > That detected the problem on my system. > > Actually, we really shouldn't go down that path. It's already difficult > enough trying to support "all Unices". Can you (or

Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-16 Thread Jason Haar
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:15:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That detected the problem on my system. Actually, we really shouldn't go down that path. It's already difficult enough trying to support "all Unices". Can you (or some other Solaris site) figure out how to do the same function us

[Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-15 Thread taltos-qs
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:20:47 +1200, Jason Haar wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:58:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The problem was that qmail-scanner was using the Solaris 8 version of > > find, which has neither -path or -mmin. I installed the GNU version > > of find, changed qmail

Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-15 Thread Jason Haar
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:58:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The problem was that qmail-scanner was using the Solaris 8 version of > find, which has neither -path or -mmin. I installed the GNU version > of find, changed qmail-scanner-queue.pl to use that, and now it is > working fine.

[Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-15 Thread taltos-qs
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 05:18:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > By "does not appear to be deleting", I mean it isn't working, but it might be > because I am doing something wrong. :) I > can run '/var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-queue.pl -z' by hand, and it says in the > qmail-queue.log that it

[Qmail-scanner-general]Re: Questions on /working/new

2003-09-15 Thread taltos-qs
> On 2003-09-14 21:17, Jason Haar wrote: > >2. What is a safe amount of time, after which you can be certain qmail-scanner is > >no > > longer using a file in working/new? The thirty hours qmail-scanner seems to use > > does not > > appear to be deleting these files from crontab. > > What doe