"if a second message came in before the first was totally processed, a second scanning request could be made. would that cause a problem?" I defintitely have this and it doesn't cause any problem, since spamd spawns n (changeable via spamd -m n)) chield processes that allow parallel processing.
The files are totally empty when returned from winspamc, so size = 0. The return path stuff is added by your mailserver afterwards. /robert From: Frank M. Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2003 19:14 To: Robert Lacroix Cc: SpamAssassin Subject: Re: [SAtalk] When not to call SA > I am having the same problem with winspamc. I changed my script to check every return of winspamc against something like "if size = 0 then send > "input_message" instead of "temp_file"". That sends the message unchecked instead of completely empty. But I doubt it has something do to with mails > that were already checked, I think it's a random error of winspamc :) What exactly is the line you are using to test? These files seem to have some size to them although they are blank or near blank (I see some with only a return path). I suppose I could check the temp file to see if it has X-Spam in the header and if not dump it. Testing for a proper To: header might also work. What's your test? Frank M. Cook Association Computer Services, Inc. http://www.acsplus.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
