Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> I have two spamd hosts, and spamc calls them seemingly random or
> doing some kind of load balance. -H option if I remeber right.
The documentation says that it just randomizes the ordering of the
addresses. So if luck is with you then you will split the load among
all of the addresses. But there are times when that doesn't work.
> But if the connection is refused, there simply is no-one
> listening. How about trying the other alternatives?
The documentation leads me to believe it does that now.
If host resolves to multiple addresses, then spamc will
fail-over to the other addresses, if the first one cannot
be connected to. It will first try all addresses of one
host before it tries the next one in the list.
However the killer bad thing for me is this:
Note that this fail-over behaviour is incompatible with -x;
if that switch is used, fail-over will not occur.
I am not willing to stop filtering mail through spamassassin if my
spamd machine is unavailble for a moment, such as during a rare
reboot. Therefore I want to use the -x option. Otherwise if all
machines are unavailable the spam is just sent through! I want it to
queue in that case. The machines will come back online and then drain
the mail queue.
> I may write this patch some day, but it might be cool to have in the
> official version.
I would like to vote for this behavior of spamc to be improved as
well. I have thought of jumping in and hacking on this but it hasn't
risen to that level of priority yet. I don't need it for performance
yet but for reliablity and redundancy I would like to be able to use
multiple spamd spamassassin server machines.
> One of my spamd machines has only 128 megabytes RAM,
> Another machine has 256 RAM,
Sporting! :-) But if working for you then efficient and likely a
greener solution than the power hogs that most are using.
> ... and I have to
> shut down spamd during the weekly sa-update/sa-compile.
Weekly? I do this daily. The sought.cf rules are a godsend.
Bob
