----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Potato Chip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <users@spamassassin.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: Memory usage spikes ...


> I've been calling this the Email Scud problem. I've been hoping for a
> patriot missle for a long time. I have noticed the same problem with
> v2.63 and v2.64. I upgraded to v3.0 hoping that the problem would go
> away but it's still there.
>
> It's happened to me about 3 times, where an email will be sent to my
> server that specifically causes the problem.  Killing the spamd process
> causes the sending MTA to resend. It usually occurs with an email with a
> large MIME attachment. In the last occurrence, the attachment was around
> 20MB and was only a .TXT attachment. The sending MTA will resend its
> Scud missle and I'll see the 250MB spamd process using up all available
> CPU.
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't save the problem message and its attachment.
> Hopefully, that sheds a bit of light on this common problem.
>
> jae
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morris Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 11:44 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Memory usage spikes ...
>
>
> Yesterday I commented that I was seeing spamd children eating a lot of
> memory, pushing the machine into swap.  I've been keeping an eye on the
> spamd children this morning.
>
> Overnight, all five children were using around 4 meg.  This morning
> sometime, one spamd child shot up to 250M:
>
> Mem:   513948K av,  504660K used,    9288K free,       0K shrd,   15532K
> buff
> Swap: 1052216K av,  263780K used,  788436K free                   68408K
> cached
>
>   PID  PPID USER      SIZE STAT %CPU %MEM COMMAND
>  1537 15624 root      250M S     0.0 44.5 spamd child
>
> 25394 15624 root     40056 S     0.0  6.1 spamd child
>
>  1432 15624 root     38932 S     0.0  6.0 spamd child
>
>  1241 15624 root     38768 S     0.0  6.0 spamd child
>
>  1754 15624 root     39308 S     0.0  6.0 spamd child

I've had the same problem, but I hadn't isolated it to a certain type of
email.  v2.63 - John


Reply via email to