A silly logging question

2009-09-07 Thread Clunk Werclick
This is probably a dumb question, but my looking through the docs is just confusing me. Can I get SpamAssassin to fully log what it is doing? The best I can ever get is something like this; Mon Aug 3 06:27:57 2009 [4290] info: logger: removing stderr method Mon Aug 3 06:27:58 2009 [4292] info:

Re: how to speed up scans of really large text-only emails?

2009-09-07 Thread Jason Haar
Just to follow myself up, it looks like "spamc -t 30" means if spamd doesn't return in 30sec, spamc will simply output the email to stdout and exit. spamd carries on processing the email and I can see the final spamd syslog report when it finishes in >30sec. Unfortunately we re-invoke spamc and it

how to speed up scans of really large text-only emails?

2009-09-07 Thread Jason Haar
Hi there We're having problems with a particular class of email. >400K in size, text-only. spamd takes 40-80sec to process it, and spamc is set with a 30sec timeout. The long processing time isn't network-related: it's all those "body" searches that are causing the hang. Obviously there are sever

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

2009-09-07 Thread rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 10:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 22:59, mouss wrote: > > Justin Mason a écrit : > >> In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more > >> recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help > >> out. Comparative thi

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

2009-09-07 Thread Justin Mason
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 22:59, mouss wrote: > Justin Mason a écrit : >> In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more >> recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help >> out.  Comparative third-party tests like this always take a lot of >> hand-holding.  W