Re: Load issue

2005-12-06 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think I figured it out already. Another helpful user explained that spamc passes the info to spamd. So it would stand to reason that if I have 10 spamd children (each sucking resources) then spamc is going to accept more mail, and queue more mail and suck mor resources as you mention. I lowere

Re: Load issue

2005-12-06 Thread JamesDR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So a few times a day I end up having to stop my sendmail on my linux mail server. Here is the back story. I was running 2.64, with procmail and recently upgraded to 3.1. I started the 3.1 with /usr/bin/spamd -d -c -m10 Which works great, but I think the old spamassass

Load issue

2005-12-06 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So a few times a day I end up having to stop my sendmail on my linux mail server. Here is the back story. I was running 2.64, with procmail and recently upgraded to 3.1. I started the 3.1 with /usr/bin/spamd -d -c -m10 Which works great, but I think the old spamassassin is still running because