Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:01 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Match your MTA processes to the spamd children. Your MTA will send
4xx 'busy now, come back to play later' message. Let the sending
MTA queue it back up (or zombies will just go away)
I don't really
From: Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:48:30 -0500
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:01 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Match your MTA processes to the spamd children. Your MTA will send
4xx 'busy now, come back to play
Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:48:30 -0500
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:01 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Match your MTA processes to the spamd children. Your MTA will
send 4xx 'busy
From: Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:55:45 -0500
Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:48:30 -0500
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:01 -0400, Michael Scheidell
Jeff Mincy wrote:
If I'm reading the spamc man page correctly, it will wait 5
minutes for spamd to process the message, but it will only wait
about 3 seconds for a connection to spamd (3 tries with 1 second
sleep between them). That's not much of a queue. Or am I missing
From: Bowie Bailey bowie_bai...@buc.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:07:23 -0500
Jeff Mincy wrote:
If I'm reading the spamc man page correctly, it will wait 5
minutes for spamd to process the message, but it will only wait
about 3 seconds for a connection to
Bowie Bailey wrote:
There is a --no-safe-fallback option on spamc which will cause it to
exit with an error message in the case of any problems (Normally, it
always exits with a 0 exit status). If you don't want anything to go
through unscanned, you can try this setting.
If I have 5
Monky wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
There is a --no-safe-fallback option on spamc which will cause it to
exit with an error message in the case of any problems (Normally, it
always exits with a 0 exit status). If you don't want anything to
go through unscanned, you can try this setting.
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 08:10 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Your assessment sounds right to me. I would make two suggestions.
1) Memory is cheap these days. Add some more RAM.
That's a mitigation strategy, yes, but it doesn't really answer OP's
question about how to make spamd stop trying
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:01 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Match your MTA processes to the spamd children. Your MTA will send 4xx
'busy now, come back to play later' message. Let the sending MTA queue it
back up (or zombies will just go away)
I don't really see that as a socially
Monky wrote:
Hallo list,
receiving a bunch of obvious spam emails without the SA tags in it
made me look at my logfiles and I found out - thats what I guess -
that for a short time my server was reaching his limits.
Short grep extracts from my logfile:
Mar 21 11:14:48 h1306680 spamd[9247]:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:20:52AM -0700, Monky wrote:
What I make of this is that when my server is using his maximum of 5 spamd
children he hits the RAM limit and starts paging (the explosion of scanning
time). Is this a sensible assessment?
How can we assess anything if you keep the
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 08:10 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Your assessment sounds right to me. I would make two suggestions.
1) Memory is cheap these days. Add some more RAM.
That's a mitigation strategy, yes, but it doesn't really answer OP's
question about how to make spamd stop trying to
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 08:10 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Your assessment sounds right to me. I would make two suggestions.
1) Memory is cheap these days. Add some more RAM.
That's a mitigation strategy, yes, but it doesn't really answer OP's
question about
14 matches
Mail list logo
