Try starting spamd with the -D option which will generate debug information.
That should help you find where it's crashing.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Sean Kirkpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] spamd d
ditto for today's build, 11-15
At 12:27 11/14/2002 -0800, Tomki wrote:
Today's build has the same problem. A new zombie for each message processed.
'ps -auxw |grep perl |sort |cat -n' currently shows 95 zombies for
different users.
--Tomki
At 12:00 11/14/2002 -0800, Tomki wrote:
The spamd per
Today's build has the same problem. A new zombie for each message processed.
'ps -auxw |grep perl |sort |cat -n' currently shows 95 zombies for
different users.
--Tomki
At 12:00 11/14/2002 -0800, Tomki wrote:
The spamd perl process from spamassassin 2.50 CVS I got yesterday (11-13)
seems to sp
The spamd perl process from spamassassin 2.50 CVS I got yesterday (11-13)
seems to spawn lots of zombie processes.
I'll try today's build.
At 13:02 11/14/2002 +, Justin Mason wrote:
Tomki said:
> I'll give it a shot right away, thanks!
BTW -- the people who are using this -- does it solve
Tomki said:
> I'll give it a shot right away, thanks!
BTW -- the people who are using this -- does it solve the spamd-dying
issue for you? and did 2.43 die? I need votes to figure out if we should
backport it and do a 2.44.
--j.
> >Tomki said:
> >
> > > Although there has been no talk of a
I'll give it a shot right away, thanks!
--Tomki
At 11:47 11/13/2002 +, Justin Mason wrote:
Tomki said:
> Although there has been no talk of a solution, there continue to be people
> who experience the problem of spamd dying.
> The experience of someone else on this list pointed me toward t
Tomki said:
> Although there has been no talk of a solution, there continue to be people
> who experience the problem of spamd dying.
> The experience of someone else on this list pointed me toward the
> 'supervise' solution, but in the instances that spamd does die, it appears
> that the mail
The only time I've had problems with spamd dying (it was core dumping) was
because I was trying to run with the -m flag to keep things under control
in the event that something went wrong. After removing the -m switch, it
hasn't died since. Also, even when I do take down spamd, non of the e-mail
ge
Gilles Nedostoupof wrote:
GN> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[19938]: server killed by SIGTERM, shutting down
GN> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[19938]: SIGPIPE received - reopening log socket
GN> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[19869]: server killed by SIGTERM, shutting down
GN> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[198
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:38:02AM +0200, Gilles Nedostoupof wrote:
> > Here's the patch I dreamed up. If there are no objections, I'll
> > submit this with a bug report.
> > I've tested it here and it certainly solves my problem.
> I'm sorry but this is not solving my problem, I've patched sp
atus=sent (250 Requested mail
action okay, completed)
Any idea?
Gilles.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stenner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: lundi 13 mai 2002 21:27
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd dying
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:58:55AM -0400, Michael Stenner wrot
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:58:55AM -0400, Michael Stenner wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:41:45AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > Well, "broken pipe" is really the process receiving a SIGPIPE. So a
> > possible solution would be something like:
> >
> > my $old = $SIG{'PIPE'};
> > $SIG{'PIP
Is adding a restart for spamd into the cron job (logrotate), just after the
syslog restart can be an efficient walkthrough for that?
Gilles.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stenner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: dimanche 12 mai 2002 18:22
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] spamd
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:41:45AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:26:01AM -0400, Michael Stenner wrote:
> > I've tracked the problem down pretty far. If syslog-ng is restarted
> > after a Sys::Syslog::connect(), and then &syslog() is called, the
> > process will die wi
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Gilles Nedostoupof wrote:
> Is adding a restart for spamd into the cron job (logrotate), just after the
> syslog restart can be an efficient walkthrough for that?
There's no real clean way to do that. That would always be a one-off
solution.
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:26:01AM -0400, Michael Stenner wrote:
> I've tracked the problem down pretty far. If syslog-ng is restarted
> after a Sys::Syslog::connect(), and then &syslog() is called, the
> process will die with "Broken Pipe".
>
> It does not appear that this can be caught. I t
Mixed news on the spamd/syslog-ng front:
I've tracked the problem down pretty far. If syslog-ng is restarted
after a Sys::Syslog::connect(), and then &syslog() is called, the
process will die with "Broken Pipe".
It does not appear that this can be caught. I tried wrapping it in an
eval {} an
processed by
the SpamAssassin.
Hope that there is a fix for that :)
Gilles.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stenner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: dimanche 12 mai 2002 21:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd dying
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 12:24:40PM -0500, Richie Laager
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 12:24:40PM -0500, Richie Laager wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 11:57 am, Michael Stenner wrote:
> > The only times I KNOW it died were at sunday morning log
> > rotation. Granted, some other things happen then, but I
> > think the log rotation is the best bet.
>
> I woul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 May 2002 11:57 am, Michael Stenner wrote:
> The only times I KNOW it died were at sunday morning log
> rotation. Granted, some other things happen then, but I
> think the log rotation is the best bet.
I would recommend that you start e
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 12:57:40PM -0400, Michael Stenner wrote:
> RHL 7.2, mostly stock. I _AM_ using syslog-ng (1.4.14),
> though... that may very well be relevant.
As an FYI, I'm running a similar RH 7.2 setup with the standard RH
released sysklogd package (sysklogd-1.4.1-4). I've never seen
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 11:39:39AM -0500, Richie Laager wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 11:21 am, Michael Stenner wrote:
> > Are other people seeing this, or do you suspect this is
> > specific to our site somehow?
> >
> > I can provide any further info you like.
Thanks for the quick reply, Richie
22 matches
Mail list logo
