Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 16:46 +0200, Per Jessen wrote: >> Martin Gregorie wrote: >> >> > What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by >> > receiving a SIGCHLD signal? >> > >> >> A timeout in the child perhaps? >> > That thought that may be the reason. It certainly seems to apply when > a > child runs longer than the time set by --timeout-child but there are > a few cases where a SIGCHLD is sent when the child has only run for a > second or two. Its a pity the log message doesn't include the reason > why the SIGCHLD was sent.
Martin, generally speaking, the parent can only report the signal and that the child has gone away. The child would have to report on why. /Per Jessen, Zürich
