On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I don't understand the source of the problem. Is there a limit on the
> "pipe size" that I wasn't aware of?
Yes, there's a kernel buffer size limit, typically around 8k these days
but configurable.
> In that case, you could solve the problem by introdu
On 3/1/02 8:25 PM, "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have those manpages, and I don't think spamc should be
> creating arbitrarily large buffers. Keep system resource usage at a
> (reasonable) minimum by moving the data sooner rather than using a
> "store-and-forward" technique.
http:
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 06:53:05PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
| On 3/1/02 4:01 PM, "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 01:42:00PM -0500, Michael Brown wrote:
| > | I've come across a problem in the spamc/spamass-milt combo when sending
| > large
| > | mail messages (>2
On 3/1/02 4:01 PM, "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 01:42:00PM -0500, Michael Brown wrote:
> | I've come across a problem in the spamc/spamass-milt combo when sending
> large
> | mail messages (>2MB in my case).
> |
> | From what I can see, the way spamc works is that
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 01:42:00PM -0500, Michael Brown wrote:
| I've come across a problem in the spamc/spamass-milt combo when sending large
| mail messages (>2MB in my case).
|
| From what I can see, the way spamc works is that a message is passed to it on
| stdin, then stdin is closed. After
I've come across a problem in the spamc/spamass-milt combo when sending large
mail messages (>2MB in my case).
>From what I can see, the way spamc works is that a message is passed to it on
stdin, then stdin is closed. After stdin is closed, spamc sends it to spamd for
processing.
It looks like
