Hi,
I read in the mailing list archive that users of previous major version (3)
of spamdyke had experienced this behavior.
I sometimes find zombie processes (qmail-smtpd) whose parent process is
spamdyke.
Lately the frequency I'm experiencing this is increasing and now I have at
least
2-3
What are the permissions on the copy you made in /bin? On my server,
vchkpw is owned by root and is marked setuid. You might need to do the
same thing.
-- Sam Clippinger
Kulkarni Shantanu wrote:
* Sam Clippinger s...@silence.org [090929 08:53]:
The script you posted did not include any
IPv6 support isn't broken in spamdyke, it's missing altogether. None of
my servers use IPv6, so I haven't implemented support for it yet. I
guess I'll put that on the list...
-- Sam Clippinger
Wouter de Geus wrote:
Hello,
Yesterday I did a new Qmail installation on a machine that has both
Dear list, I am getting trouble receiving mail from a specific mailserver.
Following the spamdyke log
Oct 19 15:37:03 ariel spamdyke[6701]: DENIED_RDNS_RESOLVE from:
x...@inmedico.com to: y...@sylcomed.com origin_ip: 193.88.99.136 origin_rdns:
mail.tdchweb.dk auth: (unknown)
Now I fixed
Nice piece, Sam.
In addition, the OS will likely have cached spamdyke's config file(s)
anyhow, so I expect any real performance gain would be negligible.
BL to me is that there are a host of other inefficiencies (pardon the
pun) that would bring a mail server to its knees long before
After looking into QMT, which has recipient validation built in, I'm not
sure Spamdyke really needs it... The implementation in QMT allows for
VPOPmail and non-VPOPmail qmail servers to easily validate recipients. If
Spamdyke implemented a version based on cdb files, with VPOPmail servers,
Hi Sam -
That is a pretty good synopsis of what he is doing. Doesn't he claim to
find *any* sought after data in no more than 7 seeks? Maybe I misread
that somewhere. :)
My take on the below would be that if spamdyke remains a qmail-only spam
blocker, then going with a cdb-based database
BC wrote:
Hi Sam -
That is a pretty good synopsis of what he is doing. Doesn't he claim to
find *any* sought after data in no more than 7 seeks? Maybe I misread
that somewhere. :)
My take on the below would be that if spamdyke remains a qmail-only spam
blocker, then going with a
Michael Colvin wrote:
After looking into QMT, which has recipient validation built in, I'm not
sure Spamdyke really needs it... The implementation in QMT allows for
VPOPmail and non-VPOPmail qmail servers to easily validate recipients. If
Spamdyke implemented a version based on cdb files,
I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Your users are sending mail
to themselves, and authenticating, but that mail is being marked as spam
by SpamAssassin? If that's the issue, I don't think spamdyke can solve
it -- SpamAssassin needs to be reconfigured.
-- Sam Clippinger
Jorge
If these zombie processes stay running for long periods of time (more
than a few minutes), you may have found a bug. spamdyke should clean up
child processes fairly quickly after they exit, no matter whether the
remote server remains connected or not.
Is spamdyke logging anything for these
Michael: I know QMT includes recipient validation already, but I would
like to add it to spamdyke so it can also be used on non-QMT servers. I
know a number of sysmadmen (myself included) who live by the policy
Never try to upgrade or patch a working qmail server. It's always
been easier
12 matches
Mail list logo
