From: Bowie Bailey
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 spamd (3 tries with
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
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:55:45 -0500
Jeff Mincy wrote:
>From: Bowie Bailey
>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:
>> >
>> > Matc
Jeff Mincy wrote:
>From: Bowie Bailey
>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
From: Bowie Bailey
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 later' message.
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
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 resp
> 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 s
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
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 ha
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
> questi
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 t
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 cr
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[92
14 matches
Mail list logo
