Hello,
I am trying to track down why is is tracking so long for mails to be
scanned via FreeBSD.
I am scanning then using qmail-scanner (1.25).
From what I can see the problem is coming from when e-mails are
arriving from external sources. The top log entry shows and e-mail from
the lan. The secnod shows and e-mail from the Internet.
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:51 BST:31808: +++ starting debugging for process
*<snip>* via SMTP from 192.168.1.10
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:51 BST:31808: clamdscan: finished scan in
0.042715 secs
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:52 BST:31808: SA: finished scan in 0.930511 secs
- hits=-4.2
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:52 BST:31808: p_s: finished scan in 0.057874 secs
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:52 BST:31808: ------ Process 31808 finished.
E-Mail from the Internet.
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:34:01 BST:31820: +++ starting debugging for process
*<snip>* via SMTP from 64.246.<removed>.29
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:34:01 BST:31820: clamdscan: finished scan in
0.046108 secs
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:34:13 BST:31820: SA: finished scan in 12.200674 secs
- hits=-2.9
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:34:13 BST:31820: p_s: finished scan in 0.060179 secs
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:34:13 BST:31820: ------ Process 31820 finished.
Looking at SA I find that:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/richard] $ spamassassin -D --lint
...
[31974] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[31974] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.56
...
[31974] dbg: dns: name server: 192.168.1.1, family: 2, ipv6: 0
[31974] dbg: dns: testing resolver nameservers: 192.168.1.1
[31974] dbg: dns: trying (3) google.com...
[31974] dbg: dns: looking up NS for 'google.com'
[31974] dbg: dns: NS lookup of google.com using 192.168.1.1 succeeded =>
DNS available (set dns_available to override)
[31974] dbg: dns: is DNS available? 1
The only thing that I have found in the archieves to help would be
"On another, a new enough Net::DNS was
installed, but because of platform issues, it couldn't find the DNS.pm
in the @INC path."
I have the DNS.pm file at
"/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/Net/DNS.pm"
Can anyone explain where this would be (the INC bit).
Cheers
Richard
