On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Arthur Dent wrote:
http://www.issociate.de/board/post/232336/Lock_failure_on_%22spamc.lock%22.html
and
http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/#SA
which tend to suggest that one should NOT put a lock on for SA
processing...
A lock file is not *needed* for spamc (or, strictly, for spamassassin
either). Using one was recommended to you as a load-management mechanism,
as you were worried about surges. I do that on my hosted virtual server
MTA - it's just a little tight on memory.
The problem noted in your first link is probably permissions-related. If
you use an explicit lockfile AFTER a DROPPRIVS directive, you could have
permissions problems accessing the lockfile, particularly if procmail
crashes with the lockfile in place.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are in a maze of twisty little protocols,
all written by Microsoft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 days until the 5th anniversary of the loss of STS-107 Columbia
