Version 2.52-1 released

[Mitchell D. Sheean]

I don't see that on your site. It's still 2.52.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Deanne Palmer" <dpalmer at SKIDMORE.EDU>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Version 2.52-1 released


> Afraid we had to back off to 2.51.  Mailscanner was dying periodically -
> although I'm not certain that check_mailscanner wasn't precipitating the
> problem.  MailScanner's been running fine since we reverted back to the
> prior release - still have 'check_mailscanner' cron.
>
> Julian Field wrote:
> >
> > At 14:59 11/10/2001, you wrote:
> > >However, twice within the past 24 hours, mailscanner has become hung.
> > >It's still running, but nothing is passing out of mqueue.in. The last
> > >time it looks like it restarted at midnight, but never processed
> > >anything after that.
> > >When I came in this morning there were over 7000 messages waiting in
> > >mqueue.in and only 70 in mqueue.
> > >I killed mailscanner and ran check_mailscanner to restart.  Everything
> > >is moving right along now, although it will probably take a few hours
to
> > >catch up.  This is running on an E250 Solaris 8.
> > >Plenty of disk space available all around.  Non-default options in the
> > >config : Deliver Method = queue rather than 'batch',  Notify Senders=
> > >no,  Notify Postmaster = no,
> > >Deliver in Background = yes.
> > >   Any ideas regarding why mailscanner seems to be getting hung up?
> > >Anyone else having this problem?
> >
> > I have seen this problem myself this morning, though I don't yet know
why.
> > The last thing in my log was "Going to scan 1 message", but, as you also
> > say, the mailscanner process was still alive, just not doing anything. I
> > hope to have time to wade through the code myself tomorrow, I need to
add
> > more debugging info to it as I cannot yet see why it would just hang. As
> > far as I know at the moment, there's no reason for any particular bit of
> > the code to just not terminate. Restarting it with exactly the same
message
> > queue solves the problem, so it can't be anything caused by a particular
> > message. What I'm wondering is whether there are bugs in the
implementation
> > of POSIX process group code that I now use (which I didn't before the
> > latest version). This was the only way of avoiding a timeout-failing
> > problem with one user of Solaris 2.7.
> >
> > If you see this problem a lot, back off to 2.51 (it's still on the web
> > site, there just aren't any links to it) and see how you get on.
> > --
> > Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
> > jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
> > Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
> >                              Southampton SO17 1BJ
>
> --
>
>
> ---------------------------
> Deanne Palmer               dpalmer at skidmore.edu
> Systems Administrator       phone: (518) 580-5914
> CITS                                     580-5000
> Skidmore College            fax:   (518) 580-5936
> Saratoga Springs, NY
>                12866-1632
> ------------------
> End of network mail