Actually, it was a different sig handler from the same manpage, IIRC. Don't use -m on BSD might be wise anyways, since essentially, my patch simply allows connections to pile up without accepting them, until we have the resources to handle them. I believe SOMAXCONN is 5 on BSD, so if you get 11 mails with -m 5, you get some connections refused.
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:03:23PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: > I had the perlipc manpage signal handler in there in the first place, > and it had to be replaced with the one you just re-replaced. Definitely > would be good to have a number of BSDers hammer on this patch before I > roll it in. Otherwise, I could roll it in with a giant "Don't use -m on > BSD" warning. > > C > > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 16:22, Duncan Findlay wrote: > > I have proposed a patch to limit the number of children spawned by spamd. It > > can be reached at http://bugzilla.debian.org/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=3 > > > > In order to make the patch, I had to remove a line saying 'important: avoids > > perl sighandling bug on BSD' > > > > I imagine that the new sighandler is better than the one that prompted the > > warning, since it is essentially copied from the perlipc manpage, but I > > would like to be sure. Could someone running BSD please try this patch, and > > try the -m option to limit children? I'd appreciate it. > > > > Any comments should probably go to > > http://bugzilla.debian.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78 > > > > The patch works great on linux. Anyone running spamd on a slow computer > > should consider it. > > > > -- > > Duncan Findlay > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > > > > > > -- Duncan Findlay _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
