> Jari Fredriksson wrote: > > 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.
Ditto. I use -x and not willing to drop it :( Nice to know the fail-over is still implemented! > 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. My 256 RAM machine does it daily, but the older Pentium Pro with 128 megs ram spends so long in the sa-compile process thrashing swapfile so I made it weekly. Hmm, but then I had spamd still running... not that it is off I might try daily again. > > Weekly? I do this daily. The sought.cf rules are a > godsend. > Yes.
