ose that did reply. I hope
this is something simple that I'm missing out of stupidity.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:46 PM
> To: Mike Kuentz (2); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [S
It may have something to do with the database you are using... make sure you
are using berkeley db . See README files for details...
On November 20, 2003 05:02 pm, Mike Kuentz (2) wrote:
> I use Bayes in a site-wide config. (2.60 w/ postfix 2.0.16) It has been
> running slower and slower with t
At 05:02 PM 11/20/2003, Mike Kuentz (2) wrote:
I'm talking about going from 10 seconds to process a
message without bayes and is now up to a minute to do it with Bayes in.
Urgh.. 10 seconds with no bayes? Are you running network checks too, or are
you running this on a 386?
---
On Thursday 20 November 2003 03:02 pm, Mike Kuentz (2) wrote:
> I can find it. I'm talking about going from 10 seconds to process a
> message without bayes and is now up to a minute to do it with Bayes in.
Could you give some specs on cpu speed, amount of memory, drives (ide/scsi/
rpm), maximum n
I use Bayes in a site-wide config. (2.60 w/ postfix 2.0.16) It has been
running slower and slower with the addition of Bayes to the system. If
I remove the bayes stuff, it's a lot quicker. Is there something I'm
missing? I remember seeing a similar post before, but I'll be damned if
I can find
