On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 08:31:18AM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Actually, my experience has been that the child in this case doesn't
> respond to kill -TERM, even after larger delays like five minutes with
> repeated kill'ing. Kill -9 seems to cause another process to pop up with
>
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be sufficient to simply not process large messages for that user?
The distro procmailrc.example file shows how set a limit on message size
processed in your .procmailrc:
:0fw:
* < 256000
| spamassassin
sets a limit of 256K, or you could pick a mu
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:25:48PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
what message a child is chewing on. No clear indication of where such a
message would be stored, or some way to just send a spamd child a sigusr2
and have it return the message unp
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:25:48PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> what message a child is chewing on. No clear indication of where such a
> message would be stored, or some way to just send a spamd child a sigusr2
> and have it return the message unprocessed.
Sure there is. Just kil
Would it be sufficient to simply not process large messages for that user?
The distro procmailrc.example file shows how set a limit on message size
processed in your .procmailrc:
:0fw:
* < 256000
| spamassassin
sets a limit of 256K, or you could pick a much smaller number.
--
Alayne McGregor
a
Okay, I've got a user who has a message that loves to eat 90 percent of
the cpu. Don't tell me it's bayes or something, I just cleared their
.spamassassin directory. It's a big ugly message, and probably a bug, but
I can't report it because there's STILL NO OBVIOUS AND EASY WAY to tell
what m
