Your message dated Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:55 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#292064:
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Jan 2005 21:19:08 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 24 13:19:08 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from public.rath.org [62.75.157.122]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CtBc4-0001Y8-00; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:19:08 -0800
Received: from local.rath.org (p508F3A87.dip.t-dialin.net [80.143.58.135])
by public.rath.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F4C2BFE501
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:18:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: by local.rath.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id E94369856F3; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:19:05 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:19:05 +0100
From: Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: spampd: Timeout behaviour
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.63
X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: spampd
Severity: normal
Hello,
Thanks for the fast responses to my previous reports - excellent
maintainer work. But here is another one..
I have the problem that, from time to time, the spampd child process is
killed due to a timeout. This makes postfix send me an error message and
refuse the mail with 4xx ("queue file write error"). Bad..
My primary wish is to stop these errors (if they are actually
errors) or error messages (if there is no error at all). If you know
what to do - please stop reading here and tell me. What follows is what
I have tried on my own and it may be misleading ;-).
I can't reproduce the behaviour in any way, but I deduced that it must
occur during reading after the DATA command, because the satimeout
(which is shorter) is not hit.
I guess that the above behaviour might occur when the client sends his
mail very slowly, but at a constant rate. The spampd timeout just counts
the seconds and doesn't care if there is data coming or not. The postfix
timeout algorithm in contrast only runs when there is no data received
at all.
I see 2 possible solutions for this problem:
- Implement postfix style timeouts for spampd.
- Implement additional spampd style timeouts for postfix. This should
make postfix do the timeout and thus not send any error mails.
But is this reasonable? I think there must be a reason why postfix
does it its way.
With this report sent to spampd you probably know what solution I
currently favour.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7
Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bye
Nikolaus
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 292064-done) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Jan 2005 17:43:26 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 26 09:43:25 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mx1.ciphirelabs.net [217.72.114.64]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CtrCP-0004qq-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:43:25 -0800
Received: from io.incase.local (dsl-082-083-062-105.arcor-ip.net [82.83.62.105])
by mx1.ciphirelabs.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD72CA40CC
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:55 +0100
From: Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#292064:
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
VALID_BTS_CONTROL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
thanks
Hi Nikolaus
As indicated in my original answer, I see no reason to change spampds=20
behaviour. I will add some info to the documentation with my next upload=20
regarding the intended way to use spampd.
I consider this bug as closed. Should you have any additional reasons=20
for me to change spampd behaviour, feel free to re-open this bug (and=20
possibly remove the wontfix tag). You can do that by sending a mail to=20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following body:
---------------------------------
Package spampd
reopen 292064
Tags 292064 - wontfix
thanks
---------------------------------
Regards,
Sven
--=20
Es gibt ausf=FChrliche Ausf=FChrungen,
die auch tats=E4chlich ins Aus f=FChren...
Gabriel Laub (poln. Schriftsteller u. Satiriker, 1928-1998)
--=20
---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signed email body (630 characters)
Date: on 26 January 2005 at 17:42:53 UTC
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.
: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines
: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.
----------------------------------------------------------------
00fAAAAAEAAACd1vdBdgIAAKADAAIAAgACACDujzVRjP5/f9QLwgTg5RhECcAdsY
MjWhwjUsnHEYPvmQEAOqbAfc4iVEE3ono+lkhvw2J/BRVneea8KvDrT8m1UntTNM
sHQ8gwB6f+hLsv5BEBdHncl2r8smmfWIXfwNJKCA=3D=3D
------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
