sday, January 17, 2002 5:29 PM
> To: Matt Sergeant
> Cc: 'Craig Hughes'; Spamassassin-Talk
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Ready for 2.0
>
>
>
> Matt Sergeant said:
>
> > OK, I've just finished a run of 1 emails, and the server
> isn't leaking
>
Matt Sergeant said:
> OK, I've just finished a run of 1 emails, and the server isn't leaking
> that much (only enough to consider that it's perl not returning free memory
> to the system after processing large files), so assuming you fixed the
> cirular reference problem with M::S::Conf, the
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> We don't run spamd here. It's a custom system (actually built
> using POE). At
> the moment I don't *think* it's leaking - it was Net::FTP
> that was leaking
> like a seive, but I won't be able to put a 100% certa
:Matt Sergeant
>Cc: Spamassassin-Talk
>Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Ready for 2.0
>
>I'm not sure I understand -- which process is leaking? The spamd process
>that stays alive? It's barely doing anything. Some child process that's
>being recycled? I don&
I'm not sure I understand -- which process is leaking? The spamd process that stays alive? It's barely doing anything. Some child process that's being recycled? I don't get it. Or is each little child leaking a little, then dying so the OS recoups the memory anyway, but it's just "leaked"
ssin-Talk
>Subject: [SAtalk] Ready for 2.0
>
>Ok jm, I updated the .spec file and fixed many documentation bugs in the
>spamd directory. Should now all be ready for 2.0 release there.
>
>C
>
>
>
>This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet.
Ok jm, I updated the .spec file and fixed many documentation bugs in the spamd directory. Should now all be ready for 2.0 release there.
C
