> > max size for spamc/spamd). I ended up solving it by adding
> > a read() loop to spamc to flush the read buffer so that the
> > milter would be ready for the response. It's probably not
> > the best solution, but I'll attach the patch anyway.
>
> Are there any particular problems with this a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 03 May 2002 15:38 pm, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I had a problem with it where it would deadlock with the
> spamc process if the message was over 250k (or whatever the
> max size for spamc/spamd). I ended up solving it by adding
> a read() loop
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:47:51PM -0400, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> Have you had better luck with this patch applied? If so, kludge or not,
> I'll certainly apply it.
Yeah, it solved the deadlock problem completely. I think a big part of it
was being caused by the milter writing to spamc in 4096
OK, that's embarassing... I though we tried that earlier.
Evidently not!
As for the reliability, let me pass a few million messages
through the system and I'll let you know. As of today, we are still testing. I
should be able to answer this by next week.>>> Ross Vandegrift
<[EMAIL PROTECTE
> I had a problem with it where it would deadlock with the spamc process if
> the message was over 250k (or whatever the max size for spamc/spamd). I
> ended up solving it by adding a read() loop to spamc to flush the read
> buffer so that the milter would be ready for the response. It's probabl
That may just be what's causing it - thanks!
Dave Strickler CEODWS - "The GroupWise Integration Experts"
Boston * Austin * Belgium * Denmark http://www.emailsolutions.com
(800) 999-5412 x10>>> Daniel Rogers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/3/2002 4:38:37 PM >>>On Fri,
May 03, 2002 at 04:17:43PM -040
Can't apply the patch until tomorrow, but will try it then and
ley you (and the list) know how it works.
Dave Strickler CEODWS - "The GroupWise Integration
Experts" Boston * Austin * Belgium * Denmark http://www.emailsolutions.com
(800) 999-5412 x10>>> Ross Vandegrift
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 04:17:43PM -0400, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On a related note, is spamass-milter at all reliable for you? I have
> huge amounts of problems with it spinning off a ridiculous number of
> sub-processess (spamass-milter and spamc) that never return. I'm
> considering figuring
It does list the port -- a unix socket in /var/local/spamass-sock
Perhaps the user you're running as doesn't have the right permissions on that
C
Dave Strickler wrote:
DS> A friend I just set up SA and it was working fine with the deamons.
DS> After rebooting, the spamass-milter wouldn't load,
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 04:08:09PM -0400, Dave Strickler wrote:
> A friend I just set up SA and it was working fine with the deamons.
> After rebooting, the spamass-milter wouldn't load, even by hand. The
> error it give is (from the log):
>
> May 3 15:47:58 scrubber su(pam_unix)[1030]: session
A friend I just set up SA and it was working fine
with the deamons. After rebooting, the spamass-milter wouldn't load, even by
hand. The error it give is (from the log):
May 3 15:47:58 scrubber su(pam_unix)[1030]:
session opened for user root by awaltman(uid=501)May 3 15:48:08
scrubber s
11 matches
Mail list logo
