Thanks for clarifying Pete!
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Pete Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:52 PM
> To: Larry Gilson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] lock problems with SPAMC
>
>
> At 11:18 AM -05
At 11:18 AM -0500 11/6/03, Larry Gilson wrote:
I agree with the fact that the lock is not needed on spamc, but I don't
understand why this would produce an error. There are a lot of individuals
that use the lock with both spamassassin and spamc as a load control. Is it
possible that by using DROP
ssary to
create and write to spamassassin.lock?
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Pete Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:51 PM
> To: Mitchell D. Baker; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] lock problems with SPAMC
>
>
&g
I think you may be putting a lock on the recipe that runs spamc - you
don't want to do that. The only time you need to lock in procmail is
when you're writing to a file that might be called by multiple
procmail processes at one time.
So, instead of:
:0 fw:
| spamc
you want:
:0 fw
Here is our setup...
2 inbound mail servers solaris running sendmail, one primary one
secondary. Secondary has all users inboxes NFS mounted to the primary
and 4 imap/pop servers.
If I crank up spamd/spamc things start to bog down greatly.. I never see
but one spamd/spamc process at a time b
