r [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:39 PM
> To: Kirk Davis
> Cc: 'Craig Hughes'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of
> FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang ...
>
>
>
> Okay, here's a question ... is anyone runn
-
> From: Craig Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:51 PM
> To: Kirk Davis
> Cc: 'Marc G. Fournier'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang
> ...
>
>
> $ for i in 1 2 3 4 5
Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:51 PM
To: Kirk Davis
Cc: 'Marc G. Fournier'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang
...
$ for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10; do spamc < test.msg&; done
That's a pretty easy way to test multiple spamc&#
'K, figured I'd throw out something that I don't think any of us have yet
:)
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I think in theory it should be fine with 5.0; 5.5 should be very fine.
>
> C
>
> on 2/13/02 9:47 PM, Marc G. Fournier at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > Just a stupid ques
I think in theory it should be fine with 5.0; 5.5 should be very fine.
C
on 2/13/02 9:47 PM, Marc G. Fournier at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Just a stupid question here ... but spamd ... it should be okay with perl
> 5.5, right? It doesn't require 5.6? I'm going to guess that all of us
> wi
Message-
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:35 AM
> > To: Craig Hughes
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milt
Hi,
I would tend to thing it is linked to milter too (and/or the
threading) because amavis-milter tend to fail now and then.
Olivier
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
It probably doesn't apply, but then again... anything to help narrow it
down, right?
I successfully have the proxyfilter working on a FreeBSD box, using
Postfix.
So, it'd probably point towards milter rather than FreeBSD.
( Just in case someone was thinking that FreeBSD was what one should
avo
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:00:03PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Craig, altho I can't see anything obvious with it, what is the chance its
> the spawn itself? Have you looked at using
> http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=Net-Server for spamd?
>
> =
> Net::Server is an exten
t; (780) 429-8308
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:42 PM
> > To: Kirk Davis
> > Cc: Craig Hughes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:42 PM
> To: Kirk Davis
> Cc: Craig Hughes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang
> ...
>
>
>
> The one issue that I know exists in FreeBSD is we've had kno
Network Analyst, ITS
> Edmonton Public Schools
> (780) 429-8308
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:35 AM
> To: Craig Hughes
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PR
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Kirk Davis
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:20 PM
To: 'Marc G. Fournier'
Cc: Craig Hughes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang
...
I think we need to try and rule out the spamc/spamd combin
ay, February 13, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Kirk Davis
Cc: Craig Hughes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang
...
The one issue that I know exists in FreeBSD is we've had known problems
with threads for the longest time ... is it possible that the
2002 10:35 AM
> To: Craig Hughes
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang
> ...
>
>
>
> Okay, have added what I think are the appropriate FreeBSD mailing lists
> for this, since I k
ECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Partial analysis of FreeBSD/spamass-milter hang
...
Okay, have added what I think are the appropriate FreeBSD mailing lists
for this, since I know I can't answer this :(
On 13 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Ok, any perl/BSD gurus out there? It spawns a ne
Okay, have added what I think are the appropriate FreeBSD mailing lists
for this, since I know I can't answer this :(
On 13 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Ok, any perl/BSD gurus out there? It spawns a new process but then
> hangs trying to read STDIN from the new subprocess? This is either
Ok, any perl/BSD gurus out there? It spawns a new process but then
hangs trying to read STDIN from the new subprocess? This is either a
BSD bug or a perl-on-BSD bug, I think. There might be a way to work
around it though -- the trick would be to find some other forking tcp
daemon which does wor
Okay, here you go ... a hang:
===
logmsg: connection from earth.hub.org [ 64.49.215.11 ] at port 4329
logmsg: before spawn
logmsg: after spawn
logmsg: connection from earth.hub.org [ 64.49.215.11 ] at port 4331
logmsg: before spawn
logmsg: after spawn
=
And perti
Any suggestions on where you'd like me to throw some debugging in here? :)
On 12 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Ok, interesting. n(spamc)+1 spamd's means that the fork already
> happened for both spamd's. Could you stick a trace on the spamd process
> though instead of spamass-milter? I'd
Ok, interesting. n(spamc)+1 spamd's means that the fork already
happened for both spamd's. Could you stick a trace on the spamd process
though instead of spamass-milter? I'd like to try and figure out where
it's getting to before it gets stuck. Possible alternative to ktrace
(and possibly more
Don't know how helpful this will be, but, just started it up and watched
it hang ...
According to /var/log/maillog, as previously noted, the hang is based on a
simultaneous arrival of two messages:
Feb 12 22:01:53 earth sendmail[91753]: g1D21pkw091747: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
delay=00:00:02, x
22 matches
Mail list logo
