Is this any cause for concern? It seems like dkim-filter 0.5.2 has been getting fatter.
Signed approximately 87,000 messages:
root     29027  0.0  3.1 230776 32416 ?      Ssl  Feb27  16:12 dkim-filter -l -p inet:3338@localhost -bs
root     29033  0.0  0.3 202648 3276 ?       Ssl  Feb27  13:28 dkim-filter -l -p inet:3341@localhost -bv
root     29068  0.0  0.2 201412 2876 ?       Ssl  Feb27  13:51 dk-filter -l -p inet:3339@localhost -bs
root     29074  0.0  0.5 204516 5844 ?       Ssl  Feb27  17:57 dk-filter -l -p inet:3340@localhost -bv

Signed approximately 780,000 messages:
root      2677  0.0  0.1 59584 3612 ?        Ssl  Jan15  90:22 dk-filter -l -p inet:3339@localhost -bs
root      2688  0.0 18.2 436640 379376 ?     Ssl  Jan15  68:58 dkim-filter -l -p inet:3338@localhost -bs

----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Earnshaw <tonni@hetnet.nl>
To: General discussion and usage issues <dk-milter-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: 03/21/2007 5:50:59 AM -0400
Subject: dk-milter-0.4.2 - dk_getsig(): resource unavailable: Cannotallocate memory


Murray S. Kucherawy wrote, on 21. mar 2007 09:27:

  
ps aux|grep dk-filter
postfix  12709  0.0  0.0  38060  1664 ?        Ssl  09:08   0:00
/usr/bin/dk-filter -u postfix -b s -l -c nofws -p /tmp/dkfilter.sock -d
domain.com -s /var/lib/dk/selector1.key.pem -S selector1

It is always this big. It never grow bigger.
      
38Mb is pretty big though.  Mine on startup is not even 1Mb.  My DKIM 
filter has been running about a week and it's only 3Mb.
    

It almost certainly depends on the OS. On RHAS4 fully up2date I have:

milter    2638  0.0  0.0 46468 1192 ?        Ssl  Jan31   0:43 
/usr/bin/dk-filter -l -p inet:10003 -d barlaeus.nl -s 
/etc/certs/dk-filter/mail.private.pem -S mail -C bad=a,dns=t -u milter 
-H -m ORIGINATING -D -h -b s -c nofws

... been running since Jan31. dkim-filter gives 56740 for VSZ, up since 
Mar08. Both are called by Postfix 2.3 and been giving ok results.

  
When I get some time to work on it again, I'll see if I can reproduce your 
condition.
    

We use an INET socket rather than a Unix socket (mind you, this is still 
0.4.1 - I've been chary about moving to 0.4.2 because of posters' 
experiences).

Best,

--Tonni