Does this seem reasonable to anyone else but me? :) Always like to get a reality check....
--On Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:40 PM -0700 Mike Batchelor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been having this problem too. The locking code is in UnixLocker.pm and is pretty straightforward. One thing I notice is that the timeout for a stale lock is 10 minutes. If a SpamAssassin instance tries and fails to get a lock for 10 minutes, it will decide the lock is stale and remove it. I'm going to try to set the max lock age to one minute and see if that helps. My MIMEDefang multiplexor is set to assume a slave is dead after one minute. I've never seen a message take more than a few seconds to process in any case, so reducing the timeout makes sense to me.
Oh, you can decide the lock is stale and remove the file bayes.lock yourself. That will unstick the ones that are waiting for up to 10 minutes.
--On Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:06 AM -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Paul Hutchings wrote:Any ideas? Looks like the message is still being scanned/tagged, just not sure what it's trying to tell me.
It's telling you that it couldn't get a lock on the DB (aka: autolearning).
-- Randomly Generated Tagline: "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them from meat." - Neill Carter
--- "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." -- Kosh
--- "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." -- Kosh
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
