Procmail Recipe Problem

[Jake Colman <co...@ppllc.com>]

I previously posted about SA being bypassed when email came in through my
backup MX.  I no longer think that that is the issue sice the headers seem
identical for my emails whether it works or doesn't.  Also, even though my
sendmail is running I just received an email that is missing my SA headers.
Clearly, some of my emails are skipping SA!

I pass all my email through a procmail recipe as follows:

DROPPRIVS=yes
##LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail
PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail

:0:
* ^Subject:.*SPAM
caughtspam

:0fw
* < 256000
| spamc

:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
caughtspam

How can I modify this to tag emails and prove that they went through this
recipe?  This will allow me to know for certain whether some email are
somehow falling throiugh the cracks or something else is going on.

TIA!

...Jake

-- 
Jake Colman
Sr. Applications Developer
Principia Partners LLC
Harborside Financial Center
1001 Plaza Two
Jersey City, NJ 07311
(201) 209-2467
www.principiapartners.com

Re: Procmail Recipe Problem

[Andy Jezierski <aj...@stepan.com>]

Jake Colman <co...@ppllc.com> wrote on 05/25/2005 10:12:08 PM:

[snip]

> How can I limit the number of sendmails anyway?  My server gets very
> overloaded in those circumstances.  In general, what happens if there 
are
> more sendmails than there are spamd processes?
> 

You can try confCONNECTION_RATE_THROTTLE or confMAX_DAEMON_CHILDREN. I 
believe that if sendmail doesn't get a response from your milter that 
calls spamd within the timeout period you specifed when defining the 
milter that it will bypass it, unless you told it to fail.

Andy

Re: Procmail Recipe Problem

[Jake Colman <co...@ppllc.com>]

>>>>> "LW" == Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net> writes:

   >> Clearly, some of my emails are skipping SA!

   LW> Which version were you running, again?  This was a known-to-happen
   LW> 'feature' with the 2.6x series, although nobody ever really figured
   LW> out why.  There are conditions where it can happen on 3.0.1 or .2, I
   LW> believe, if the spamd children all get themselves in a knot.  Spam
   LW> processing stops and mail ends up bypassing SA.  However, the 3.0.1-2
   LW> case should result in a lot of mail bypassing SA, not just the
   LW> occasional thing as on 2.6x.

Loren,

I think I already posted a reply to this email but I don't see it in the
list.  If this is a duplicate I apologize.

I am using SA 3.0.3.  What you are suggesting as the problem makes alot of
sense.  I usually see this happen when my server comes back on-line after
being off-line for a while.  When that happens, my server gets very
overloaded as the backup MX dumps whatever it was holding.  I end up with
over a 100 sendmail processes running at the same time.

Maybe I need to reconfigure sendmail and/or spamd?  I limit spamd to 5 child
processes (I specify options "-d -c -m4").  Maybe this is the problem?  Maybe
I need more spamd processes or fewer sendmail processes??

How can I limit the number of sendmails anyway?  My server gets very
overloaded in those circumstances.  In general, what happens if there are
more sendmails than there are spamd processes?

Thanks for your help!

...Jake

-- 
Jake Colman
Sr. Applications Developer
Principia Partners LLC
Harborside Financial Center
1001 Plaza Two
Jersey City, NJ 07311
(201) 209-2467
www.principiapartners.com

Re: Procmail Recipe Problem

[Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>]

> Clearly, some of my emails are skipping SA!

Which version were you running, again?  This was a known-to-happen 'feature'
with the 2.6x series, although nobody ever really figured out why.  There
are conditions where it can happen on 3.0.1 or .2, I believe, if the spamd
children all get themselves in a knot.  Spam processing stops and mail ends
up bypassing SA.  However, the 3.0.1-2 case should result in a lot of mail
bypassing SA, not just the occasional thing as on 2.6x.

        Loren