[Exim] exim 3.22 problem on solaris 2.6

Pàgina inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Gary Palmer
Data:  
A: exim-users
Assumpte: [Exim] exim 3.22 problem on solaris 2.6
Hi,

We recently tried upgrading to Exim 3.22 (compiled with 32 bit version
of gcc 2.95.2) on our inbound mx servers and while it appeared to
work, we noticed that a number of odd files were gathering in the
spool directory. They're all -D files, and they're all roughly the
same size. e.g.

-rw-------   1 exim     exim      811008 May 29 07:23 ./B/154hbB-0004oH-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 08:03 ./B/154iEB-0006eL-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 08:28 ./B/154icB-00055e-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 09:33 ./B/154jdB-0005O2-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 10:06 ./B/154k9B-0001yw-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 11:12 ./B/154lAB-0004iQ-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 11:45 ./B/154lgB-0002PZ-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 12:50 ./B/154mhB-0003TT-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 12:58 ./B/154mpB-0006TZ-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 13:04 ./B/154mvB-0000rJ-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 13:23 ./B/154nDB-0007Cw-00-D
-rw-------   1 exim     exim      778240 May 29 13:56 ./B/154njB-0002jy-00-D


The odd thing comes when you look in one of the files. At the start,
there is part of a header. The message-id I find mentioned for the
message on the machine where the file is found is not in the logs
anywhere (main or reject). No panic logs were created. Then a small
snipped of the configuration file, then what appears to be a dump of
malloc'd memory used by exim itself.

Anyone seen anything like this before? It doesn't happen often
enough, and these machines are under a load which makes trussing the
exim listener & its children an extreme way of debugging the problem,
and I'm not sure of any other way of determining what is going on.
I've since backed back down to 3.16 (which didn't have this problem),
but I'd like to upgrade.

Thanks,

Gary