I have found spamd and spamc to be quite effective and fairly low load with a
high volume.
I scan over 2 million messages a month on each of 4 mail servers with almost 30
being marked as spam. The machines I have are Dual xeon 1.8GHZ boxes with a GIG
of RAM each.
Mark
Quoting gagel <[EMAIL PROT
We had performance problems using spamassassin on our mail
machine. Mostly because it was a windows box calling a perl
script which called spamassassin.
I setup a linux box and use spamd/spamc on it. I've gone
from well over a minute to process a single email to an
average of about 1/10th of a sec
Great thanks to all those who have helped with our problem.
I should have done some more checking before I posted to the list. We
were initially not using spamd/spoamc when I posted. After changing it
to spamd/spamc it is able to process much more mail without as much CPU
overhead, but we are
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:39:10PM -0600, Jeff Engelhardt wrote:
> We are looking into spamassassin, but after minimal testing it looks
> like we will grind our machine to halt if we have many people using it.
> Our mail server is a Sun Ultra60 with 2x450MHz CPUs and 1.2GB RAM.
> That machine is
Jeff Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are looking into spamassassin, but after minimal testing it looks
> like we will grind our machine to halt if we have many people using it.
> Our mail server is a Sun Ultra60 with 2x450MHz CPUs and 1.2GB RAM.
> That machine is server incoming mai
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:39:10PM -0600, Jeff Engelhardt wrote:
> We are looking into spamassassin, but after minimal testing it looks
> like we will grind our machine to halt if we have many people using it.
> Our mail server is a Sun Ultra60 with 2x450MHz CPUs and 1.2GB RAM.
> That machine is
