gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general

Chris | 2 Oct 21:54

Other spamd errors

I'm seeing this spamd error now in my syslog and I haven't a clue as to what 
it means.  Could someone possibly assist?

Oct  2 13:08:47 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: child states: BI 
Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: handled cleanup of child pid 
30717 due to SIGCHLD 
Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: select returned error on 
server filehandle:  
Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: server successfully spawned 
child process, pid 712 
Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: child states: II 

--

-- 
Chris
Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org
14:55:08 up 22 days, 3:07, 1 user, load average: 0.49, 0.26, 0.19
Mandriva Linux 10.1 Official, kernel 2.6.8.1-12mdk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us.
		-- Henrik Tikkanen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

headers

Daryl C. W. O'Shea | 2 Oct 23:30

Re: Other spamd errors

Chris wrote:
> I'm seeing this spamd error now in my syslog and I haven't a clue as to what 
> it means.  Could someone possibly assist?
> 
> Oct  2 13:08:47 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: child states: BI 
> Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: handled cleanup of child pid 
> 30717 due to SIGCHLD 
> Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: select returned error on 
> server filehandle:  
> Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: server successfully spawned 
> child process, pid 712 
> Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: child states: II 

You'll see this every 200 messages per child (or whatever # you've set 
--max-con-per-child to) when a child is respawned.  It's normal.

Daryl

headers

Chris | 3 Oct 00:53

Re: Other spamd errors

On Sunday 02 October 2005 04:30 pm, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Chris wrote:

> > Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: select returned error
> > on server filehandle:
> > Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: server successfully
> > spawned child process, pid 712
> > Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: child states: II
>
> You'll see this every 200 messages per child (or whatever # you've set
> --max-con-per-child to) when a child is respawned.  It's normal.
>
> Daryl

Thanks Daryl for this and the info on the tags placement.  I hate being a 
PITA but I've another question regarding Razor checks:

1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level
                            above 50%
                            [cf: 100]
 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK           Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level
                            above 50%
                            [cf: 100]
 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
                            [cf: 100]

Why are there so many Razor tags?  I can see that there are two different 
engines being used, but if I remember correctly in 3.0.4 there would only 
be one tag for Razor.  I'd imagine that since I have this in my local.cf

(Continue reading)

headers

Daryl C. W. O'Shea | 4 Oct 00:58

Re: Other spamd errors

Chris wrote:
> Thanks Daryl for this and the info on the tags placement.  I hate being a 
> PITA but I've another question regarding Razor checks:
> 
> 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level
>                             above 50%
>                             [cf: 100]
>  0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK           Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
>  1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level
>                             above 50%
>                             [cf: 100]
>  0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
>                             [cf: 100]
> 
> Why are there so many Razor tags? 

Why not?!  They were there when the scores were optimized and accounted for.

> I can see that there are two different 
> engines being used, but if I remember correctly in 3.0.4 there would only 
> be one tag for Razor.

Nope, there was more than one.

> I'd imagine that since I have this in my local.cf
> use_razor2              1
> that would account for one of the tags?  I assume that this can be removed 
> or commented out, since its now a plugin?

 From the elusive (Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Razor2) man page:

(Continue reading)