Hi RaveRod,
lundi 19 avril 2004 at 04:18:54, you said :
RaveRod> I'm running XMail with the "sa_filter" and
RaveRod> "Antivirus Filter". Neither of
RaveRod> those filters should matter though because it's
RaveRod> XMail itself using the RAM.
RaveRod> Here is the "ps ux" output:
RaveRod> USE
Is that required for kernel v2.4.22?? I didn't think it was.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Pascal de R.
Sent: Monday, 19 April 2004 6:58 PM
To: RaveRod
Subject: [xmail] Re: Excessive memory usage with v1.18
Hi RaveRod,
lundi 19 avril 20
lundi 19 avril 2004 at 12:16:10, you said :
RaveRod> Is that required for kernel v2.4.22?? I didn't think it was.
I have kernel 2.4.18 and I need it...try it...It's really working for
me
RaveRod> -Original Message-
RaveRod> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RaveRod> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Ra
Hmm... after doing that... "ps ux" contains this:
root 12259 0.5 0.4 55528 1588 pts/0S21:22 0:00
/var/MailRoot/bin/XMail
root 12261 0.0 0.4 55528 1588 pts/0S21:22 0:00
/var/MailRoot/bin/XMail
root 12262 0.0 0.4 55528 1588 pts/0S21:22 0:00
/var/MailRo
lundi 19 avril 2004 at 13:25:11, you said :
RaveRod> Hmm... after doing that... "ps ux" contains this:
RaveRod> /var/MailRoot/bin/XMail
RaveRod> root 12286 0.0 0.4 55528 1588 pts/0S21:22 0:00
RaveRod> /var/MailRoot/bin/Xmail
RaveRod> Should there be so many instances of Xmail?
> Should there be so many instances of Xmail?
>
Yes - in my opinion thats quiet normal (because every thread/instances
is shown as a single running process)
perhaps try:
$ ps faux | grep XMail
and you will see that the first XMail is the one you have seen with your
"old" ps-command before exp
Well, either way I run it, it seems to use the same amount of RAM. Don't
need to worry about the memory usage anymore. Cache is storing the extra RAM
and freeing it up when it's needed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Achim Schmidt
Sent: Mo
|exit /b 0
|exit /b 19
|
|Is that right ?
It does not matter. Command "exit x" would exit batch and command
interpreter with errorlevel x. Command "exit / x" would not exit command
interpreter but only the batch file. Because in this case the only thing =
to
be run is this batch, it works with "/b
The main problem is that SpamAssassin does not produce XMail-compatible
message, the "pseudo-headers" on top are not present. So this is over =
=3D
the
possibility of simple batch file.
xSpamassasinf solves this issue I think? However that creates the
problem that xmail needs to process the mail s
Hi,
I think it would be worth trying to run spamd instead of spamassassin
directly, it is quicker and consumes far less mem&cpu (without any cygwin
environment).
I have a filter in c that implements smapc on windows and info about spamd
setup, you can find it here:
www.henry.it/xmail/xspamc.h
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 16:15, Filip Supera wrote:
> Then, your solution rejects spam. Maybe you could consider
> adding a second parameter to allow marking without
> rejecting. Leaving the reject decision to the end user's MUA
> filtering system ?
Don Drakes spamassasin filter works great on li
H=E9, I didn't now about that onw. I will try
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dario Jakopec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: maandag 19 april 2004 15:46
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: [xmail] Re: HOWTO run SpamAssassin on Windows in coincidence =
with XMail (the simple solution)
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, RaveRod wrote:
> Hmm... after doing that... "ps ux" contains this:
>
> root 12259 0.5 0.4 55528 1588 pts/0S21:22 0:00
> /var/MailRoot/bin/XMail
> root 12261 0.0 0.4 55528 1588 pts/0S21:22 0:00
> /var/MailRoot/bin/XMail
> root 12262 0.0 0.
13 matches
Mail list logo
