> -Original Message-
> From: David F. Skoll [mailto:d...@roaringpenguin.com]
>
> It's probably more efficient to have the thing that would block more mail run
> first. On our installation, for example, ClamAV stops less than 0.1% of all
> mail
> (yes, you read that right), so running it f
* Walter Hurry :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:44:14 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > * Walter Hurry :
> >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> >>
> >> > Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is
> >> > interesting, but as I understand the solution
* David F. Skoll :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:41:18 +0200
> Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > That's ~230 msg/sec. Ever took it to 500 msg/sec?
>
> No, we lack the hardware to do that. The 230 msgs/sec rate was
> reached by a customer with a lot more money for hardware than we have. :)
Isn't that th
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:44:14 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * Walter Hurry :
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>>
>> > Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is
>> > interesting, but as I understand the solution discussed addresses
>> > read
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:41:18 +0200
Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> That's where your product an SA differ, right? SA writes more to
> PostgreSQL e.g. it also stores Bayes tokens in PostgreSQL.
Right.
> That's ~230 msg/sec. Ever took it to 500 msg/sec?
No, we lack the hardware to do that. The 230
* Walter Hurry :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is interesting,
> > but as I understand the solution discussed addresses read performace. I
> > am interested in write performance. How far could you tak
* David F. Skoll :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200
> Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > I am interested in write performance. How far could
> > you take it before PSQL topped out? Any special hardware in use?
>
> We're not writing very much to PostgreSQL. For each message, we
> write a small
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200
Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> I am interested in write performance. How far could
> you take it before PSQL topped out? Any special hardware in use?
We're not writing very much to PostgreSQL. For each message, we
write a small row containing the internal incide
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is interesting,
> but as I understand the solution discussed addresses read performace. I
> am interested in write performance. How far could you take it before
> PSQL topped o
* David F. Skoll :
> > Claiming SA "ignores large sites" because it doesn't have a complex
> > CDB backend is ridiculous.
>
> I'm not at all claiming SA ignores large sites. I'm claiming that people
> with *your* attitude ("Other 99.9% of user don't really care...") are
> ignoring large sites.
c
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:35:01 +0300
Henrik K wrote:
[...]
> Feel free to donate your code for SA and stop the pointless bashing.
Um? I'm not "bashing" SA. I think it's a fine piece of work. All I asked
is if anyone has made a CDB back-end for SA and I explained why I thought
it might be a goo
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 03:12:40PM -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:02:10 +0300
> Henrik K wrote:
>
> > Let's be serious. Only people that really need it are the ones with a
> > custom high volume distributed spam appliance thing. Other 99.9% of
> > users don't really care if
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:08:34 -0400
Adam Moffett wrote:
> I've often mused about which should run first, but never did any sort
> of testing. Is it pretty much the general consensus that it's less
> wasteful for the AV to scan the spam than to have SA scan the malware?
It's probably more effici
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:02:10 +0300
Henrik K wrote:
> Let's be serious. Only people that really need it are the ones with a
> custom high volume distributed spam appliance thing. Other 99.9% of
> users don't really care if Bayes lookups take 100ms or whatever. It's
> peanuts compared to other proc
On 07/29/2011 02:13 PM, Kelson Vibber wrote:
> Also, to complete the system, I recall there were some AV-mailets at the age.
If possible use> them before SA to catch message carrying viruses.
Absolutely - we've got ClamAV running first, before anything touches SA, and
using some of the SaneS
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 01:00:52PM -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> That's why I was wondering if anyone had looked at using CDB with SA's
> Bayes module.
Let's be serious. Only people that really need it are the ones with a custom
high volume distributed spam appliance thing. Other 99.9% of user
> That said, I would suggest to not decouple bayes from SA, since I wouldn't
> see any advantage
> in this approach and you would rather miss the a bayes score from the SA
> totals. You would
> end having more FPs due to the bayesian mailer running apart and needing
> special score
> thresholds
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:45:53 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> you need custom code to sync bayes? do expires? or just interesting
> entries in local.cf?
Ah, I should have mentioned we don't use SpamAssassin's Bayes module. We
use our own Bayes implementation.
That's why I was wondering if an
On 7/29/11 12:41 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:31:01 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
ok, but are you using cdb or postgresql for bayes?
cdb for the Bayes data; PostgreSQL for the journal table.
Regards,
David.
you need custom code to sync bayes? do expires? or just intere
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:31:01 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> ok, but are you using cdb or postgresql for bayes?
cdb for the Bayes data; PostgreSQL for the journal table.
Regards,
David.
On 7/29/11 12:20 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
This INSERT-only
operation cannot block under PostgreSQL MVCC.
ok, but are you using cdb or postgresql for bayes?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Best Mobile Solutions Product
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:59:14 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> in mysql, we don't journal. what does that journaling time do to SA
> processing times? Id hate to think we go from 1 s/email processing
> time to 60 seconds or something while journal is locked.
Journalling *improves* training spee
On 7/29/11 11:47 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
CDB is*very* fast. If you journal your Bayes training and run the
journal every 5-10 minutes, CDB can easily keep up even with a 2GB
Bayes database.
in mysql, we don't journal. what does that journaling time do to SA
processing times? Id hate to thin
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:36:52 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 7/29/11 11:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > Has anyone investigated writing a CDB backend for SpamAssassin's
> > Bayes implementation? I'm guessing the need to rewrite the DB each
> > time makes it a bit complex.
> esp for people
On 7/29/11 11:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Has anyone investigated writing a CDB backend for SpamAssassin's Bayes
implementation? I'm guessing the need to rewrite the DB each time makes
it a bit complex.
esp for people with 2gb db's?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:26:57 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> if you use mysql.pm for other things (sql params, user's, etc), it
> still doesn't seem to make sense to use sdbm AND mysql.
We use PostgreSQL for a number of things, but we found that CDB is
much faster than all competitors for Bayes
Can this really be true?
On 7/29/11 5:28 AM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database can
its not just faster than DB, but faster the innodb/mysql.pm?
one of the things I like about innodb/mysql.pm i
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, monolit939 wrote:
it will be problem, because when I use:
sa-learn --backup > /tmp/bayes_export
I get:
ls -l /tmp/bayes_export
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 77 2011-07-29 15:37 /tmp/bayes_export # the file has
just 77B
BUT when I use:
su mail -c 'sa-learn --backup > /tmp/bayes_exp
On 2011-07-29 16:16, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 15:50, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database
can
increa
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 15:50, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Axb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassi
On 2011-07-29 15:50, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database
can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB form
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Axb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database
can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley D
On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database
can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has s
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database
>> can
>> increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
>> format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database
>> can
>> increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
>> format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with conversion
of standard Spamassassin
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with conversion
of standard Spamassassin bayes database.
I have found just this
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with conversion
of standard Spamassassin bayes database.
I have found just this
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with conversion
of standard Spamassassin bayes database.
I have found just this
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with conversion
of standard Spamassassin bayes database.
I have found just this
> From: Kelson Vibber [mailto:k...@tollfreeforwarding.com]
>
> ...omissis...
>
> If so, would you recommend:
> 1. Sticking with SA's Bayesian filter?
> 2. Running SpamAssassin without Bayes, then James' BayesianAnalysis
> mailet?
> 3. Running James's BayesianAnalysis mailet first, then SpamAssas
41 matches
Mail list logo
