[Mimedefang] mimedefang-2.45 and dual opteron

[alan premselaar]

Bill Maidment wrote:
> I've had mimedefang-2.45 spamassassin-3.0.0 clamav-0.80rc2 running for 
> about a week OK on a dual opteron. Then yesterday a friendly bz2 file 
> came in as an attachment and clamav threw a fit. I upgraded to 
> clamav-0.80rc3 and still had the same problem, so I went back to 
> clamav-0.75.1 which handled the bz2 file OK on i386 machine. That's when 
> mimdefang stopped working.
> 
> I've gone through a myriad of software combinations and just cannot get 
> mimedefang to work again. I can't even get the original problem to occur 
> again. sendmail/mimedefang just stops on receiving an email as below.
> 
> Sep 30 22:51:52 mail mimedefang-multiplexor[2396]: Starting slave 1 (pid 
> 2479) (2 running): Bringing slaves up to minSlaves (2)
> Sep 30 22:53:44 mail sendmail[3205]: i8UCrgoP003205: 
> from=<SRS0=d0klbGjq=MT=maidment.com.au=bill at maidment.com.au>, size=1244, 
> class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<415C01D1.9090700 at maidment.com.au>, 
> proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=video.maidment.com.au [192.168.2.5]

Bill,

   I've been installing a new machine with MD 2.45, SA 3.0 and clamav 
0.75.1 and it was working fine until I added some greylisting code. then 
it did the same thing.

it turns out that for some reason it was choking on my "use strict;" 
line.  more specifically it was complaining (during debugging) about 
calls to non-existant subroutines "main::sub_routine_name" which 
actually did exist.

I must have beat my head against the wall for 2 hours debugging this.
I reverted to a previous version of the filter and it started working 
again as expected, so i stepped thru changes, etc and finally once I 
removed the use strict; line with all my code changes, everything 
started to work. (i still need to figure out why that was happening)

anyways, the point (i think) is... check the little things and make sure 
you don't have something really little and really obvious taunting you 
and causing you problems.

in my case, it was get as far as you show in your log and then the slave 
would timeout and die and tempfail.

anyways, probably not much help, but thought i'd share.

alan