Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-19 Thread Olivier Nicole
>I already have RBL enabled in my MTA (postfix), and those RBL checks >don't take anywhere near 30 seconds. Altho I will try setting >"skip_rbl_checks" to 1 and try the timing again. Be careful;l that RBL test of SA are not the same as RBL tests of your MTA. SA does not test on the enveloppe, but

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-19 Thread Olivier Nicole
>Something must be wrong with your installation or setup. >My average time for a scan is ~4 seconds and that's with >RBL's checks and Razor. That is forgetting a lot of versatility in network access. I beleive I access most of the RBL servers through 2 satellite hops, thats means 1 second RTT. A

RE: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-18 Thread Michael Leone
Tony Hoyle said: >> -Original Message- >> From: Michael Leone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 18 July 2002 16:15 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base >> >> >> Hmmm. Well, I can try it again.

RE: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-18 Thread Tony Hoyle
> -Original Message- > From: Michael Leone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 18 July 2002 16:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base > > > Hmmm. Well, I can try it again. What info should I post, to determine > wheth

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-18 Thread Michael Leone
Lars Hansson said: > On Wednesday 17 July 2002 20:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it >> would take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4. > > Something must be wrong with your installation or setup. > My average time

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-17 Thread Lars Hansson
On Wednesday 17 July 2002 20:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it would > take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4. Something must be wrong with your installation or setup. My average time for a scan is ~4 seconds and

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-17 Thread Michael Leone
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 23:28, Olivier Nicole wrote: > >It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it would > >take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4. > > It should be, AFAIR, it disable RBL check that takes some time (if nop > CPU resources). I already ha

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-17 Thread Simon Lyall
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote: > >It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it would > >take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4. > > It should be, AFAIR, it disable RBL check that takes some time (if nop > CPU resources). I'm finding the delay

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-17 Thread Olivier Nicole
>It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it would >take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4. It should be, AFAIR, it disable RBL check that takes some time (if nop CPU resources). Olivier --- This sf

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-17 Thread Matt Kettler
The rules are static, and hand made. The "AI" part is done by the developers to evolve the scores applied to rules, and is done prior to release. /usr/share/spamassassin is the default location for the standard ruleset. You can add your own custom rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf for s

Re: [SAtalk] newbie question about rule base

2002-07-17 Thread turgon
> I'm considering whether to incoporate spamassassin > into our main mailgateway (which is running amavis as email virus > scan. The good thing is the new amavis has this spamassassin > inclusion option) or not. Well, amavisd-new has it. There are like 4 versions of amavis now - amavis, amavisd,