> From: Theo Van Dinter > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 8:08 PM [...] > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 07:59:44PM -0800, Gary Funck wrote: > > Isn't there a kind of belt-and-suspenders justification for restarting > > each sub-process (via fork) - that memory leaks may develop, and by > > restarting, their effect is reduced. > > Yeah, but restarting for every message causes a lot of overhead which > doesn't need to occur. Allowing the children to exit/restart is > pretty simple. We do it in mass-check (--restart), and it's the same > type of thing the Apache httpd does. (wondering if we can use some of > that code actually... perhaps a C connection manager and perl compute > children or something.)
Doesn't MIMEdefang do something like that as well?
