Mailing List Archive

[Bug 3484] spamc not always setting exit code
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484





------- Additional Comments From sidney@sidney.com 2004-06-07 18:03 -------
What does "no status code" mean? A program always returns some status code, even
if it is 0? Is that log part of qmail, and if so what is there in between
"SPAMASSASSIN STATUS:" being written and the return code from spamc being written?




------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 3484] spamc not always setting exit code [ In reply to ]
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484





------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib@msquadrat.de 2004-06-08 02:06 -------
The only reason which comes to my mind why spamc might look as if it doesn't
return a status code is if it either crashes or hits some timeout. Can't tell
without knowing qmail's logging code though. We need some more data points on
this, like mail logs from spamc/spamd for the corresponding queries...



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 3484] spamc not always setting exit code [ In reply to ]
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484





------- Additional Comments From dallase@nmgi.com 2004-06-15 15:19 -------
has the memory footprint of spamc changed much going from 2.63 to 3.0?

i believe my softlimit is what is causing this... i bumped it up a little and i
think the problems have all but gone away. everything is exiting 0 now.




------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 3484] spamc not always setting exit code [ In reply to ]
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484





------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib@msquadrat.de 2004-06-15 15:49 -------
I don't think it has changed that much but maybe we've introduced some race
condition which goes and eats up memory somewhere in there?



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 3484] spamc not always setting exit code [ In reply to ]
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484

dallase@nmgi.com changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME



------- Additional Comments From dallase@nmgi.com 2004-06-16 13:27 -------
well, whatever it was... i can no longer reproduce with an slightly increased
softlimit. resolved for now.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 3484] spamc not always setting exit code [ In reply to ]
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484





------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib@msquadrat.de 2004-06-16 13:49 -------
Just to have some data points if we ever need to reopen this bug: What was
your old softlimit and to what did you change it?



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 3484] spamc not always setting exit code [ In reply to ]
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484





------- Additional Comments From dallase@nmgi.com 2004-06-16 14:00 -------
qmail-smtpd which calls spamc and uvscan via qmail-scanner was softlimited at
16mb... i'm now running 20mb softlimit. the uvscan engine version has not
changed, the the qmail-scanner version has not changed.

now that i think about it, i did add SPF support into my qmail-smtpd around the
same time i went to SA3.0, so that may be whats responsible for the memory increase.





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.