On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:26:22 +0200 "Fran. J Ballesteros" <n...@lsub.org> wrote:
> just FYI. our spamd indeed had problems leading to corrupt db entries > so some where never white listed. > > I changed it to use a simple in memory db and it now white lists as > it should. the change is ok for us but not for openbsd, so I didn't > submit any patch anywhere. > > the symptom of the problem is that some mails get rejected with > temporary failures forever. I would pay attention to the logs and the > db if using the stock spamd. > > Also, in case it affects, we are using the software raid. > > hth others googling for spamd. > > > El 10/9/2015, a las 15:41, Peter N. M. Hansteen <pe...@bsdly.net> > > escribió: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:04:26PM +0200, Fran. J Ballesteros > >> wrote: > >> > >> with 5.7 our spamdb becomes corrupt after a while. Are we the only > >> ones with this problem? Anyone else using it? > > > > using spamd with related tools including spamdb through the 5.7 > > cycle and past, yes. > > > > seeing spamdb corrupted, not that I've noticed. What are the > > symptoms more specifically? > > > > > > -- > > Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation > > team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ > > http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious > > network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected > > after 42673 seconds. > I have been hitting issues with spamdb since April. Ended up disabling it as it's just a private server for 2 people so not really hurt much by being disabled. You can see the problem I reported on the mailing list here: http://marc.info/?t=143015818200003&r=1&w=2 I do wonder if you are having the same issues as I did back then.
