On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Mike Burger said the following on 04/12/02 12:37: > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following on 03/12/02 22:23: > >> > >>>On that note, is it best to just run spamd standalone in the background or > >>>inetd (not interested in using daemontools unless it's really needed). It > >>>seems to like standalone fine, but I don't see anything re: this in the > >>>docs. > >> > >>I understand not wanting to run daemontools unless you have to, but it > >>really is the best way to do it. You get very nice memory management, > >>and if spamd dies daemontools will just start it up again (and protect > >>against looping die/restarts). > > > > > > Daemontools isn't/shouldn't be necessary to run spamd. In fact, the > > system on which I run spamd doesn't have anything called "daemontools" (or > > "daemon-tools") installed on it. > > I didn't say it was necessary, but it's nice. Right now what do you do > if spamd goes down? The only thing you can do is run "while true; do > spamd; done". And what do you do when it decides to gobble all available > memory?
Haven't run into that problem on any of the 5 or 6 systems on which I run spamd...including 2 fairly high traffic systems. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org:2000 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Visual Studio.NET comprehensive development tool, built to increase your productivity. Try a free online hosted session at: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr0003en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
