On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 01:05:36PM -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Bob McClure wrote:
> > My client built a script that runs sa-learn for each user's (about 15
> > of them) spam and ham boxes.
> 
> That's easy enough.  I do that here as well.
> 
> > We're having some problems with the
> > script that make the client think that sa-learn pushes some of its
> > work into the background.
> 
> What kind of problems?

They are, so far as I know, unrelated to SA.  We mount a Win2K3 share
where the Outhouse PST spam/ham buckets are, and for each user, run
readpst on them, and then process the results with sa-learn.  When
it's over with, the script umounts the share and sometimes that
reports

  umount: /var/spamtmp: device is busy

No, it isn't sitting on /var/spamtmp - it previously did a "cd /".
Little by little, I'm adding more instrumentation to the script to
figure out where the problem is.  If that happens very many times,
/var/spamtmp attains an indeterminate state such that any attempt to
do anything with it (ls, for instance) results in input/output error.
The only thing we've found to resolve that is to reboot the machine.
Ugh.

> > I know the script itself does not do that.  I told him I didn't
> > think sa-learn does anything in the background.  Am I not correct?
> 
> sa-learn does not run any processes in the background if that is what
> you mean.  It simply does its thing and exits when it is finished.

That's what I thought.  Thanks for the confirmation.

> You can force it into the background like this:
> 
>     sa-learn --spam /directory &
> 
> But that shouldn't cause any problems (except load if you try to run
> too many of them in parallel).
> 
> > The system is a RedHat ES4 box running postfix and spamd/spamc and
> > procmail.
> > 
> > Thanks for all your good work.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Bowie

Cheers,
-- 
Bob McClure, Jr.             Bobcat Open Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]             http://www.bobcatos.com
"Where you go in the hereafter depends on what you were after here."
  - Thanks to Graffiti, 2 March 2004

Reply via email to