> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:57:54AM -0600, Dallas L. Engelken wrote: > > If the max children are hit doing SPAMC CHECKS, a SPAMC PING has to > > wait until there is an available child to answer that ping right? > > Shouldn't this be an exception, since a PING just wants the > daemon to be > > listening. Is there a way the parent process can answer the PING? > > Not in the 3.0 design -- the parent has nothing to do with > the socket. In the > 3.1 design, I don't quite know if the parent accepts and > passes, or if the parent just delegates who should answer. I > think it's the latter, so in short, no. ;) >
K. So a SPAMC PING is not really a PING.. It's an 'is there an available free child check'. :) Dallas
