Thanks for clarifying Pete! --Larry
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:52 PM > To: Larry Gilson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] lock problems with SPAMC > > > At 11:18 AM -0500 11/6/03, Larry Gilson wrote: > >I agree with the fact that the lock is not needed on spamc, > >but I don't understand why this would produce an error. There are > >a lot of individualsthat use the lock with both spamassassin and > >spamc as a load control. Is itpossible that by using > >DROPPRIVS=yes removes the permissions necessary tocreate and write > > to spamassassin.lock? > > The problem with the locking error is related to the DROPPRIVS. > With a normal mailbox lock, the lock is created using the name of > the mailbox as the root, which is typically owned and only updated > using that user's uid. With a filtering recipe, the lock is > created using the program's name, but now that must be shared by > many different users - one person gets to create it, and everybody > else gets the error message. Without DROPPRIVS, the lock is > ecreated fine, but now verybody has to queue up on that lock, so > you only get one spamc/spamd process pair running. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
