I'd be very interested to know how this turns out.  Two things bug me about 
this solution: no matter what the timeout is, spamdyke should just sit quietly 
and wait for more input (using select()); it shouldn't consume any CPU at all.  
Also, when the idle timeout is zero and spamdyke disconnects qmail, then 
continues the SMTP conversation on its own, it should reset its idle timeout to 
20 minutes to imitate qmail's behavior.

Of course, if spamdyke is spinning rapidly through its waiting-for-input loop, 
strace should show lots of activity.  In fact, I don't understand how a process 
can consume 100% CPU without showing any activity in strace -- this makes me 
distrust the strace output in this case.

If you could send me a full log file that triggers this behavior, I would 
really like to reproduce it.  What OS are you running?  And have you tried 
increasing your "softlimit" value in your "run" file?

-- Sam Clippinger

On Aug 18, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Chris Boulton wrote:

> I think I've completely overlooked us not having an idle time-out.
> 
> Turning the logging on, I noticed that the processes were getting stuck were 
> definitely spammers. I'd say the issue is is exactly how Sam describes it on 
> the website:
> 
> "Most spam software is pretty stupid and doesn't handle error codes from SMTP 
> servers. Instead, they send their commands and wait for specific responses. 
> When those responses don't come, the software just sits forever and waits"
> 
> I've added timeout values in on a few servers, and we'll see how we go over 
> the next 24 hours.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Eric Shubert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is it spamdyke that's using the CPU, or another process? clamav had a
> problem doing this sort of thing a couple versions back (0.95.x iirc).
> 
> Other than that, I haven't heard of anything like this. I'd look at
> processes related to queuing (scanners?) and see if there's a problem in
> that area. Given your volume, I'd suspect that there's a resource
> constraint that a little configuration tweaking might remedy.
> 
> --
> -Eric 'shubes'
> _______________________________________________
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

_______________________________________________
spamdyke-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Reply via email to