On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:38:02AM +0200, Gilles Nedostoupof wrote:
> > Here's the patch I dreamed up. If there are no objections, I'll
> > submit this with a bug report.
> > I've tested it here and it certainly solves my problem.
> I'm sorry but this is not solving my problem, I've patched spamd/spamd.raw,
> recompiled SA.
> When I do a /etc/rc.d/init.d/syslog restart ; spamd is stopping working :(
>
> Here's a part of my /var/log/maillog :
< snip >
> May 15 11:06:45 john spamd[19871]: clean message (4/5) for (unknown):500 in
> 5 seconds.
> May 15 11:06:45 john spamd[19871]: SIGPIPE received - reopening log socket
> May 15 11:06:45 john spamd[19870]: clean message (4/5) for (unknown):500 in
> 5 seconds.
> May 15 11:06:45 john spamd[19870]: SIGPIPE received - reopening log socket
> May 15 11:08:09 john sophie[19861]: Sophie child has timed-out (no data
> received in 90 seconds) - process killed
> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[19938]: server killed by SIGTERM, shutting down
> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[19938]: SIGPIPE received - reopening log socket
> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[19869]: server killed by SIGTERM, shutting down
> May 15 11:08:28 john spamd[19869]: SIGPIPE received - reopening log socket
>
> 11:08:28 I shut down spamd after waiting some time; then the process
> continue...
All right... brainstorming here.
1) The SIGPIPE lines are my work. Without the patch, spamd probably
would have died on the first SIGPIPE.
2) The SIGTERM is probably you trying to kill it. How are you killing
it? Are you sure you're killing the parent?
3) The patch that I submitted only allows spamd to stay alive after a
syslog-related SIGPIPE and continue to log. It doesn't have
anything to do (one way or the other) with the actual processing of
mail, so you probably have something else going on too.
In my case, mail processing was completely unaffected by the "bug",
except for that pesky detail about spamd dying a painful death.
4) It looks like the processes logging here are all children, judging
by the log contents, and by the pids. Where are the parent's logs?
What I see is not inconsistent with what I did. The children
inherit filehandles from parents. So if a handle gets screwed up
after several children are forked, I'm not surprised if all of them
need to reset the handle. In contrast, if they are forked _after_
the handle is screwed up (and parent resets it) then they should be
OK.
5) It looks like you may be getting a lot of mail (given you have
several children running at once). You might try backing off a bit
for testing, to see what happens. Who knows... maybe I still have
your problem but don't see it due to low volume.
If you must, you can try invoking spamd via spamc from a single
account's procmail, or just by running spamc directly on the
command line. That way, you can scale up in volume exactly as you
like.
(Of course, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that the way
you're invoking it is involved.)
No answers, but this should keep you busy :)
-Michael
--
Michael Stenner Office Phone: 919-660-2513
Duke University, Dept. of Physics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Box 90305, Durham N.C. 27708-0305
_______________________________________________________________
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
