on Sat, Apr 27, 2002, Karsten Heymann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020427 09:18]: > > * Karsten Heymann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020426 04:56]:
> > Are you using spamc/spamd or calling spamassassin directly? I don't > > have any hard evidence, but the word on the street is that using > > spamd is much, much faster for the scanning portion. As this is > > probably your bottleneck, try that. If you're already using > > spamc/spamd, then I'm not sure where to go. Some more detail about > > your delivery process would help. Does getmail hand off to > > procmail/maildrop/etc? What is your mailbox format (mbox vs. > > maildir?) I'd say that maildir would be faster in this case: no > > seeking; no locking. > > Yes, I'm using spamd, procmail, no local mta, maildir, sanitizer, lbdb > and the duplicate mail recipe from procmail-lib. When running getmail > in verbose mode I see clearly that delivering to my mailbox takes much > longer than fetching from or deleting on the server. My experience is that ~1 second/message is about right with spamd. Invoking spamassassin directly raises this to 4-5 seconds/message. Perl ain't light. I'm not sure that this really imposes a significant lag -- my dialup connection's already pretty slow. At work (T-1), I run a daemonized fetchmail every couple of minutes (unless it's died, in which case I don't ;-), which means the backlog's usually just a score or so messages. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? KQED FM: The bright spot on the dial: http://www.kqed.org/fm/
pgpGb8bD4UWAd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
