Re: 3.0.3/4 uses all CPUs after tie (uuencoded attachments)?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Thomas Jacob writes:
> It seems, that for us at least, this is caused by Spamassassin scanning
> larger (>1mb) mails containing uuencoded files, without mime attachment
> headers
> or anything.
> 
> But this only seems to happen sometimes or when spamd has been running
> for a little while, for if we feed an email that appears to have caused
> the memory problem into a restarted spamd, nothing happens.
> 
> When spamd chokes on such a mail, it slowly but constantly increases its
> memory usage, eating up all the systems memory.
> 
> We haven't been using a size-limit for exiscan/exim up till now, but
> that can hardly be the root cause of the problem, for why would
> need spamd gigabytes of memory when processing, let's say, a 10mb
> mail?

Yes, a size limit is *required*.   It's very important to limit
the size of messages scanned by SpamAssassin.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFCqG3YMJF5cimLx9ARAjqMAJsH/5RAmcpO7+/r/0aYqyIjYSkw+QCgha28
hVX6guQ1qJhGDUTc9/muuYk=
=y2uS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: 3.0.3/4 uses all CPUs after tie (uuencoded attachments)?

[Thomas Jacob <ja...@internet24.de>]

> Yes, a size limit is *required*.   It's very important to limit
> the size of messages scanned by SpamAssassin.

Well, we're limiting the size of emails that spamd sees now, maybe
that will "solve" the problem, and of course it's generally sensibly to
do this, as there isn't really much spam larger than lets say 250k,
but still, when scanning a single 10mb mail makes the spamd process dealing 
with that mail eat >2 gigabytes of main memory until all of it is exhausted, 
that doesn't seem like "normal" programm behaviour, does it?

What could it possibly do with that much memory for a 10mb mail? ;)