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
21 matches
Mail list logo
