>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Horne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 12:44 PM
>To: SpamAssassin
>Subject: Re: RDJ from cron - is it safe?
>
>
>On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 14:13 -0700, Ed Kasky wrote:
>> At 09:54 AM Thursday, 6/23/2005, John Horne wrote -=>
>> >Hello,
>> >
>> >We have been running RDJ manually, but are now considering 
>running it
>> >via cron. The problem is what if something 'goes wrong'? 
>This is on a
>> >central mailhub, and we do not want the mail going through un-spam
>> >checked. I gather others do run RDJ from cron, so the question is
>> >have there been problems doing this?
>> 
>> RDJ will not restart the daemon or even keep changed rulesets if the
>> lint returns an error.  So, running it via a cron job is safe.
>> 
>Many thanks for all the replies, which all seem positive.
>
>However, we have been seeing problems with restarting the daemon
>recently, which is why I am wary about starting to run RDJ 
>from cron. In
>trying to restart spamassassin, on a fedora core 4 and core 3 
>system, we
>see:
>
>  /etc/init.d/spamassassin restart
>  Shutting down spamd:                                       [  OK  ]
>  Starting spamd: Could not create INET socket on 
>127.0.0.1:783: Address
>  already in use (IO::Socket::INET: Address already in use)
>                                                             [FAILED]
>
>It seems that a single child procees is left running:
>
>  ps auxww|grep -i spamd
>  mail      4156  0.0  2.7  61532 57152 ?    S    17:28   0:00 spamd
>    child
>  root      4169  0.0  0.0   3756   736 pts/1    S+   17:28   0:00 grep
>    -i spamd
>
>If we run 'restart' again then it works okay. If we do a stop 
>and then a
>start, that too works okay.
>
>Does anyone else see this problem? Our mail servers can get busy, so we
>start SA with the options:
>
>    -d -x -m 15 -s daemon -u mail --max-conn-per-child=100
>
>Reducing the '-m' value made no difference to this problem.
>SA version is 3.0.4 on the FC4 server.


I'm completely guessing out of the blue here, but is it a timing issue? Is
it trying to restart before the final child is able to quit?

Chris Santerre 
System Admin and SARE/URIBL Ninja
http://www.rulesemporium.com 
http://www.uribl.com

Reply via email to