> > If performance is an issue, how about an option like...
> >
> > HIT_AND_RUN 1
> >
> > ...that would cause spamd to stop processing once your threshhold
had
> > been met? IOW why keep scanning text once the message has been
> > identified as spam? I'm sure that I'm missing something here but I'
I have added a .cf files to disable osirusoft, and set rbl_timeout and
razor_timeout to 5 seconds.
I start spamd with the following:
971 ?R 0:11 /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/spamd -a -u pop3 -p 1783 -i
65.161.2.7 -A 65.161.2.30,65.161.2.16,65.161.2.14
Sep 11 19:02:19 spam0 spamd[1986]:
Behalf Of Steve
Thomas
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 5:04 PM
To: Scott Rothgaber
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd performance
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Scott Rothgaber is rumored to have
said:
>
> If performance is an issue, how about an option like.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Scott Rothgaber is rumored to have said:
>
> If performance is an issue, how about an option like...
>
> HIT_AND_RUN 1
>
> ...that would cause spamd to stop processing once your threshhold had
> been met? IOW why keep scanning text once the message has
Sorry for jumping in.
If performance is an issue, how about an option like...
HIT_AND_RUN 1
...that would cause spamd to stop processing once your threshhold had
been met? IOW why keep scanning text once the message has been
identified as spam? I'm sure that I'm missing something here but I'd
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 09:42:02PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
> New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps) drive:
Single Duron 1.3GHz CPU, FreeBSD 4.8: some stats for Sept. 11, 2003:
Total analyzed :827
Average analysis time :
At 09:42 PM 9/11/03 -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps) drive:
1) exactly what comands do you launch spamd with?
2) what exact command are you executing to process your messages in this
test and time them? If spamc isn't part of the ans
primary mail server running qmail has the following for local deliver
instructions (other items related to qmail processing not shown):
/usr/bin/spamc -u pop3 -d 65.161.2.8 -p 1783
this tosses the message to the dual AMD/spamd server set up with:
#!/bin/sh
exec \
/usr/bin/spamd -a -m 100 -u pop
New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps) drive:
first number time second number msg size
16.0 66395
2.7 5884
2.1 1456
6.8 1519
5.0 1307
4.5 1436
4.5 1436
7.6 1367
2.7 1367
1.5 3504
8.6 1374
3.5 1421
2.3 1319
7.5 1519
2.0 1485
8.5 1367
6.7 5319
4.0 2
ED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd performance
> New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps)
drive:
>
> first number time second number msg size
> 16.0 66395
> 2.7 5884
> 2.1 1456
> 6.8 1519
>
At 06:21 PM 9/10/03 -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
Whats causing the 3X difference in msg scanning?
Are you using _ANY_ network checks? DNS blacklists, razor2, dcc, pyzor, etc
all have wildly varying times because they are heavily dependant on the
load at the remote server and the load of every inter
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 03:21 pm, Paul Farber wrote:
> hello all
>
> new install of spamassassin 2.55 on a RH 9.0 machine (custom kernel build)
>
> PC is an 800Mhz VIA Eden C-3 processor, 512Mb RAM 20Gb HDD. THe primary
> mail server uses spamc to toss the mail to the scanner.
>
> Heres a
hello all
new install of spamassassin 2.55 on a RH 9.0 machine (custom kernel build)
PC is an 800Mhz VIA Eden C-3 processor, 512Mb RAM 20Gb HDD. THe primary mail
server uses spamc to toss the mail to the scanner.
Heres a taste of the spamd times:
first column is time (seconds) second column i
We are running Exim using spamassassin version 2.53 to scan all non-local
mail with sitewide autowhitelisting enabled. Calls to spamassassin are made
through spamd and this situation had happily persisted for a year, until
today. Just before 12:00 GMT we noticed that mail was flowing very slow. On
14 matches
Mail list logo
