On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 06:54:36PM -0400, Joseph Barillari wrote:
>
> I run spamassassin as a procmail filter. It's a fine program, except
> when I have a bunch of messages waiting. In that case, here's what
> happens.
>
> 1. I type `fetchmail'. Fetchmail starts downloading ~50 messages.
[snip]
> "BS" == Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> > I run spamassassin as a procmail filter.
>>
>> [...] if you did use a lockfile here then while sendmail would
>> run in parallel and procmail would run in parallel they woul
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 06:54:36PM -0400, Joseph Barillari wrote:
>
> Would spamc/spamd respond better to an inrush of mail? Or is there a
> switch to flip to make procmail or sendmail process the mail serially
> -- not by re-queuing it, but by using some form of locking such that
> when one spam
On Friday 05 July 2002 06:55 pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Which version of spamassassin do you have installed? I've been using -m
> since 2.20 ...
Ooops. The spamd manpage in my manpath must be old; my bad.
--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll b
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Right idea, wrong execution. Local lockfiles are ignored on recipes
> > that do not deliver to files. You need a global lockfile
>
> Are you sure? For which procmail version?
Hmm. I'm pretty sure I've gotten the "extraneous local lockfile ignored"
w
> > [...] if you did use a lockfile here then while sendmail would run in
> > parallel and procmail would run in parallel they would converge at the
> > spamassassin step and only one of those would be running at a time.
> >
> > :0fw:spamassassin-run.lock
> > | spamassassin -P
>
> Right idea
On Friday 05 July 2002 05:44 pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Spamd forks on each connection, so this won't lighten the load unless you
> use the -m option to limit the number of forked copies. I use -m 3 on a
> P233 with 128MB and that seems to deal with fetchmail floods just fine. On
> the other han
On Friday 05 July 2002 03:54 pm, Joseph Barillari wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm curious as to how one might limit the number of simultaneous
> spamassassin processes.
If you're using Qmail to deliver mail locally, you can create the control file
"concurrencylocal", put in an interger, and it will neve
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I run spamassassin as a procmail filter.
>
> [...] if you did use a lockfile here then while sendmail would run in
> parallel and procmail would run in parallel they would converge at the
> spamassassin step and only one of those would be running at a ti
> I'm curious as to how one might limit the number of simultaneous
> spamassassin processes.
This is one idea that surfaced while reading your question. I am sure
there are better ones.
> I run spamassassin as a procmail filter.
If you are using the typical .procmailrc rule to pipe through to
Hello.
I'm curious as to how one might limit the number of simultaneous
spamassassin processes.
I run spamassassin as a procmail filter. It's a fine program, except
when I have a bunch of messages waiting. In that case, here's what
happens.
1. I type `fetchmail'. Fetchmail starts downloading ~5
11 matches
Mail list logo
