On Fri, 6 May 2005, Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> I am planning to fallback to 3.0.2 version. Can you please let me know if
> 3.0.2 code also has same problem or any other issues.
I had the same problem with 3.0.2. I had to turn off Bayes and AWL, and
have yet to turn them back on. I reported this prob
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:02:45AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> > body_parts can never contain the current node nor parent nodes, so the patch
> > doesn't actually do anything.
>
> How is that asserted? "Deep recursion" would make it sound like it
> does indeed contain one of those -- although bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> body_parts can never contain the current node nor parent nodes, so the patch
> doesn't actually do anything.
How is that asserted? "Deep recursion" would make it sound like it
does indeed contain one of those -- although bu
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:18:03AM +0545, Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> > > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > > line 659
> >
> > could you try this patch? if it doesn't work, I sug
On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:52, Justin Mason wrote:
> Bikrant Neupane writes:
> > from maillog
> > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > line 659
>
> could you try this patch? if it
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Loren Wilton writes:
> > > from maillog
> > > Deep recursion on subroutine
"Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > > at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> >
Justin Mason wrote:
[...]
on 3.1.0 or 3.0.2?
3.0.2
[...]
Are you limiting the size of messages being passed to spamd? Scanning
The limit is 200k.
as far as I know, there is not a remotely-exploitable bug here. Obviously
these would be more serious and we encourage those to be reported on the
bugz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick von der Hagen writes:
> Dennis Davis wrote:
> [...]
> > Some on this list recommended reducing --max-conn-per-child from the
> > default of 200 to reduce possible memory leakage in earlier versions
> > of SpamAssassin. I doubt that this is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
> > from maillog
> > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > line 659
>
> As far as I know (which may be wrong) th
Hello All,
Justin: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 is a lot better at effective RAM usage than 3.0.0
... This is because it (a) runs with a
smaller number of active children ... keeps one or two servers very busy, using the
others for "overflow"
We process 60K messages a day and use most of our 10 spamd proc
> from maillog
> Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> line 659
As far as I know (which may be wrong) the deep recursion thing isn't related
to either bayes or awl expiry. I seem to re
400MB of memory usage.
After setting "--max-conn-per-child=20" I haven't seen more than 200MB
for a single spamd, which is five or even six times as much as usual
(littel bit more than 30MB).
Stephen M. Przepiora, David Stern and Johann Spies confirmed that they
have seen "mem
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> From: Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:53:13 -0700
> Subject: Re: memory-usage going BOOM
>
> jdow writes:
> > Fr
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:05:17PM +0200, Patrick von der Hagen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
> month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
> and message-throughput have been quite constant.
>
> However, yesterd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yes, I think this definitely should be on the bugzilla ;)
- --j.
Bikrant Neupane writes:
> On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:52, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Bikrant Neupane writes:
> > > from maillog
> > > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Mess
On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:52, Justin Mason wrote:
> Bikrant Neupane writes:
> > from maillog
> > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > line 659
>
> could you try this patch? if it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bikrant Neupane writes:
> from maillog
> Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> line 659
could you try this patch? if it doesn't work,
On Thursday 05 May 2005 04:38, Justin Mason wrote:
> jdow writes:
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > BTDT, bought the T-shirt. Adding memory will help. Short term solution
> > > can be adding swap space. Another option can be running SA remotely
> > > on another machine (users run spamc -d sa.
Thanks. That does help understand what is going on. This might be a
good writeup for the wiki.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> jdow writes:
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > BTDT, bought th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jdow writes:
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > BTDT, bought the T-shirt. Adding memory will help. Short term solution
> > can be adding swap space. Another option can be running SA remotely
> > on another machine (users run spamc -d sa.machine.com)
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> BTDT, bought the T-shirt. Adding memory will help. Short term solution
> can be adding swap space. Another option can be running SA remotely
> on another machine (users run spamc -d sa.machine.com)
This might be "A GOOD TIME" for someone to create a small exposition
r
I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
and message-throughput have been quite constant.
However, yesterday one of my servers went BANG, due to lack of memory.
First I suspected Bind9, but when the me
I have, and I did the same as you along with dropping in another gig of ram.
Steve
Patrick von der Hagen wrote:
Hi all,
I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
and message-throughput have been quite c
Hi all,
I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
and message-throughput have been quite constant.
However, yesterday one of my servers went BANG, due to lack of memory.
First I suspected Bind9, but whe
24 matches
Mail list logo
