On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:10:18PM -0500, Sean Davis wrote:
> I recently setup my NetBSD/sparc64 machine (Ultra5, 270mhz) with
> spamassassin and am running spamd on it. My main i386 machine which actually
> receives the mail then (via spamc -d ...) offloads spam processing to the
> sparc64: the only annoying part is this.
> 
> I had a bunch of messages come in at once (which is not unusual) so they
> were tossed at spamd, five at a time (the concurrency limit I have on local
> delivery so as not to overload the spam processing box), and I saw this as
> they were getting processed:
> 
> (wordwrapped to avoid long lines)
> Nov  3 14:55:32 starways /netbsd: hme0: status=21<GOTFRAME,RFIFOVF>
> Nov  3 14:55:32 starways /netbsd: hme0:
> status=10021<GOTFRAME,RFIFOVF,RXTOHOST>
> Nov  3 14:55:32 starways /netbsd: hme0: status=10020<RFIFOVF,RXTOHOST>
> Nov  3 14:55:32 starways /netbsd: hme0:
> status=10021<GOTFRAME,RFIFOVF,RXTOHOST>
> Nov  3 14:55:32 starways /netbsd: hme0:
> status=10021<GOTFRAME,RFIFOVF,RXTOHOST>
> Nov  3 14:55:32 starways /netbsd: hme0:
> status=3000021<GOTFRAME,RFIFOVF,HOSTTOTX,TXALL>
> Nov  3 14:55:41 starways /netbsd: hme0:
> status=121<GOTFRAME,RFIFOVF,SENTFRAME>
> Nov  3 14:55:41 starways /netbsd: hme0:
> status=3010121<GOTFRAME,RFIFOVF,SENTFRAME,RXTOHOST,HOSTTOTX,TXALL>
> 
> Since I saw no errors in ifconfig -v hme0 on the sparc64, and everything
> works fine, I'm inclined to think that those can be ignored, correct?
> 
> If so, would it be a bad idea or a good idea to #if 0 out the code that
> spits those in the kernel, or add a sysctl (net.iface_quiet) or something
> of the like? If they aren't causing any problems, I don't need to see
> them...
> 

Use hme.c revision 1.39.

	Andrey