Thanks for the prompt reply.
> What makes you believe that SA has hung and isn't actually doing
> something? Without any indication that SA has actually hung I would
> suspect that a bayes auto expiry is taking place. If you prefer, you
> could disable bayes_auto_expire and run expiries via a cron job.
The domain gets hit with ~3000 messages per day. Of these, ~2400
have invalid recipient user names or other gross technical problems;
they are rejected before spamd is called. Of the remaining messages,
~500 are spam and ~100 are ham. When it's running correctly, SA
catches all but ~10 of the spam, with less than 0.01% false positives.
When running without bayes, as it is now, about 30 spam go uncaught,
without any false positives. Usually, there are zero or one spamd
children active. Occasionally, I see two; they normally exit within a
few seconds. When the trouble occurs, the maximum number of
children are active, and remain so for hours. The children show
different queue entries, but each child remains on the same queue
entry until manually stopped. Of course, no ham or spam gets
delivered when this happens. If I don't intervene manually, there
seems to be a fail-safe mechanism in exim which kicks in after several
hours and starts delivering mail without passing it through SA.
>> There is another minor problem, don't know if it may be related: All
>> messages are tagged RDNS_NONE. ...
> It's not related. It's probably being caused by a milter/whatever or
> your MTA config. If you provide sample headers and a description of
> your setup someone may be able to suggest why it's happening.
I have nothing except the rules built into exim that reject messages
with bad or inconsistent addresses, without invoking SA. Here are
some of the headers of a typical uncaught spam (user name changed):
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:15:56 -0700
Received: from scgroup by server.switchnet.com with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1I2XYw-0000OF-0T
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:15:55 -0700
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0 (2007-05-01) on
server.switchnet.com
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.3 required=5.0 tests=FM_XMAIL_F_OUT,
HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE,HTML_MESSAGE,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.0
Received: from [89.180.173.137] (helo=vrdbxpfoqpo)
by server.switchnet.com with smtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1I2XYt-0008Vy-OF
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:15:53 -0700
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There are no other Received: headers. 89.180.173.137 resolves to
89-180-173-137.net.novis.pt , when tested from a server shell prompt.
Thanks in advance for any insight on either issue.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/spamd-hanging-in-bayes-processing-tf3968138.html#a11280628
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
