I noticed that qmail-scanner 1.22 uses "perl" and my
previous qmail-scanner 1.16 uses "suidper"
Any difference?
Regards,
rootlinux
--- Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu May 20 2004 03:59 am, root linux wrote:
>
> although the time in process says no, it could very
> well be. we explored many
> packages both free and commercial trial versions
> until we found one fast
> enough to fit our needs. most were intolerably slow.
> by that i mean they took
> only a few seconds to process but that was too slow.
> we were looking for
> something to average under a second on all but the
> largest attachments.
>
> one way to do this would be to , for a few seconds
> anyway, disable the virus
> scanner in qmail-scanner-queue.pl and watch if it
> returns your processing
> times to normal.
>
> i have also seen definition files cause severe
> slowdowns in a/v scanners, and
> soon as they were replaced, the problem went away.
>
>
>
> > Could it be the antivirus processing problem? I
> am
> > using Virus Scan for Linux v4.24.0
> >
> > Regards,
> > rootlinux
> >
> > --- Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed May 19 2004 12:46 pm, root linux wrote:
> > > hmm.. if it is any consolation, and i dont know
> if
> > > anyone else experienced
> > > this, but our incoming attempted mail volume
> > > increased at least 100% or more
> > > this past week. it is starting to level back off
> a
> > > bit now though. to be
> > > honest. i personally think that is not enough
> ram to
> > > properly run a fully set
> > > up qmail system that is used by the public. from
> my
> > > personal experience with
> > > it, i would not attempt to run a public server
> in
> > > less than 640mb ram.
> > > private server could probably get away with it
> at
> > > 256. hmm maybe a definition
> > > of what i mean is wise.. to me a public server
> means
> > > run at an isp or
> > > similar handling a few thousand 'home' domains.
> > > private would mean 1 or 2
> > > domains in an office or home environment.
> > >
> > > the machine has enough processor power. more
> than
> > > enough. if you watch the
> > > processor usage you will see it hardly rises due
> to
> > > its speed in handling
> > > what little it has to.
> > >
> > >
> > > what may be interesting too is to watch your
> smtp
> > > log and see how many smtp
> > > threads are running average and what your total
> > > allowed is. if they are
> > > always building up to the max, your rbl may be
> > > taking too long. we sometimes
> > > see that.. we run rblsmtpd with spamcop,
> spamhaus
> > > and ordb. sometimes when
> > > they start gumming up the works, one of them may
> be
> > > timing out etc, we just
> > > eliminate that one for a day or so.
> > >
> > > > This is an Intel P3 1GHz with 256MB of RAM
> > > >
> > > > But it performed ok since this week...bad
> things
> > > > happened, :(
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > rootlinux
> > > >
> > > > --- Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed May 19 2004 11:54 am, root linux
> wrote:
> > > > > hmm. odd. i am going to top-answer this one
> due
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > > its length. tail the queue
> > > > > log and see if you can manually notice the
> > >
> > > delay.
> > >
> > > > > according to the av scanner
> > > > > it only took .5 secs to complete its scan
> yet
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > > entire thing took 11
> > > > > seconds? very odd. the most i have ever seen
> our
> > > > > system take was about 2
> > > > > seconds when it had to unzip an 18mb file
> > >
> > > attachment
> > >
> > > > > and scan the contents.
> > > > > the internal known virus comparisons and
> > >
> > > unwanted
> > >
> > > > > extension comparisons are
> > > > > so fast they cannot be a contributing
> factor.
> > > > >
> > > > > by any chance is this a slower machine? that
> can
> > > > > have some effect on it (ours
> > > > > is only 700-mhz but it is more than
> sufficient).
> > > > > also how much ram do you
> > > > > have installed? if you can please paste a
> > >
> > > complete
> > >
> > > > > free report about this.
> > > > > running out of ram can also cause this
> behavior
> > > > > (ours is 1gb.. we topped ram
> > > > > quite a bit when we had 512mb). does
> anything
> > >
> > > else
> > >
> > > > > live on this machine or is
> > > > > it dedicated to qmail?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here is the mail message header: -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Received: (qmail 15388 invoked by uid
> 504); 19
> > >
> > > May
> > >
> > > > > > 2004 15:34:13 -0000
> > > > > > Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by
> > > > >
> > > > > mail.example.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.16 (ehost
> > >
> > > Clear:.
> > >
> > > > > > Processed in 11.096361 secs); 19 May 2004
> > >
> > > 15:34:13
> > >
> > > > > > -0000
> > > > > > Received: from unknown (HELO
> mail.yahoo.com)
> > > > >
> > > > > (1.1.1.1)
> > > > >
> > > > > > by 0 with SMTP; 19 May 2004 15:34:02 -0000
> > > > > > Received: from mail.yahoo.com (intermail
> > > > >
> > > > > [127.0.0.1])
> > > > >
> > > > > > by mail.yahoo.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with
> ESMTP
> > >
> > > id
> > >
> > > > > > i4JFUssu019078 for
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > >
> > > Wed,
> > >
> > > > > 19
> > > > >
> > > > > > May 2004 23:30:54 +0800
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
