On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Emin Akbulut wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=24.4 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
(liberally snipped)
There are commas at the end of these lines, implying you have trimmed the
rest of the list of tests that account for the different scores. Go back
and assemble the FULL logs, so that we can see the difference in what
tests fire and what tests don't.
Now if I have to GUESS on insufficient data, I would suspect that the
'port' of spamd to Windows(?) does not properly tidy up its children when
finished. The fact that it crashes certainly points in this direction.
May I presume that you did a 'full' memory test?
To verify this situation, try running the same test as before, but leave a
one minute gap between each run/test (and with no other spamd calls during
that time interval!) so that we can see what happens when the spamd
children have time to properly terminate.
- C
Ps. I'm not researching this deeply, so I may trip over some minor aspect
of spamd coding/behaviour that the developers will call me on, I'm sure.
:)
