| 1 |
Jarry wrote: |
| 2 |
> Might be bug in clamd/spamassassin. But it could also be you are |
| 3 |
> being mail-bombed (e.g. infinite depth of compressed-in-compressed |
| 4 |
> attachements). |
| 5 |
I thought about that - but I can't find an offending email with a bogus |
| 6 |
attachment if I am. |
| 7 |
> I recommend to include some limit for number of clamd/spamassassin |
| 8 |
> instances. Don't know if procmail has such a capability, but it is |
| 9 |
> easy to control it with wrappers like amavisd-new or MailScanner... |
| 10 |
I'd assumed that clamassassin would take care of this with some sensible |
| 11 |
defaults for me... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
My default clamd.conf says: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
# Maximum depth directories are scanned at. |
| 17 |
# Default: 15 |
| 18 |
#MaxDirectoryRecursion 20 |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So, I'd imagine that would take care of this... conversely - it did seem |
| 22 |
a bit strange that clamassassin was configured to use clamscan not |
| 23 |
clamdscan (which would have made more sense to me) but it had been |
| 24 |
configured that way for a very long time according to the file-dates and |
| 25 |
it's only recently that things went awry for me... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
My procmailrc is simply how I wire in my mail delivery filters. I'd |
| 28 |
expect the filters themselves to behave sensibly... Though it came as a |
| 29 |
bit of a shock to see that my postfix user had as many processes spawned |
| 30 |
as it did... I'd always thought that the purpose of postfix was to queue |
| 31 |
mail in order that it could be processed sequentially in order to avoid |
| 32 |
this sort of problem... |
Archives