Could your MTA be the bottleneck?
On 1/12/04 5:14 PM, "Dimitry Peisakhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I wrote to the list a few weeks ago asking for advice on spamd
> performance. I got some, and have implemented it, but dont know if i'm
> seeing a performance improvement. The p
I agree, autolearn in conjunction with the odd manual insert works very well
here, although I'm still having troubles blocking the variation of those
ridicoulous drugs/rx msgs.
0.000 01781758 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 319835 0 non-token data: nha
Hiya,
I am just building up a new POP server for our users to replace our ageing
old mail server.
I already have a separate machine doing Spam Assassin, which is run on a
system wide basis and I just redirect certain domain names that want
filtering via it.
On this new server, I am running postf
or more, with no problems.
jay
Gavin Cato wrote:
Anyone? :(
On 10/11/04 8:56 AM, "Gavin Cato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiya,
Got a bit of a problem.
Have this setup ;
Internet --> avmx01 server (Postfix + ClamAV + Amavisd) --> SA server
(Sendmail + SA 3.0.1
n 11/11/04 3:48 PM, "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> there's been a few reports of this, but we're really mystified.
> A test case would help, but it doesn't seem easily reproducab
Anyone? :(
On 10/11/04 8:56 AM, "Gavin Cato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> Got a bit of a problem.
>
> Have this setup ;
>
> Internet --> avmx01 server (Postfix + ClamAV + Amavisd) --> SA server
> (Sendmail + SA 3.0.1) --> Remote
Hiya,
Got a bit of a problem.
Have this setup ;
Internet --> avmx01 server (Postfix + ClamAV + Amavisd) --> SA server
(Sendmail + SA 3.0.1) --> Remote MTA
The avmx01 server was upgraded to a much more powerful machine 2 days ago. I
don't think that should be causing this problem though.
The SA
L PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 07:39:00AM +1100, Gavin Cato wrote:
>> Is there a way to edit this apart from editing the source code?
>
> Yeah, it's configurable. Check out "perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf",
> look for "report" and "clear_report_template". :)
Is there a way to edit this apart from editing the source code?
"Spam detection software, running on the system "assassin.nexon.com.au", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar futur
t call
> amavisd for the domains that you don't want checked, wouldn't it?
>
> Gavin Cato wrote:
>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> I'm just trying this out on a test server.
>>
>> Is it possible to have amavisd only spamcheck the domains listed in
>> @lo
Hiya,
I'm just trying this out on a test server.
Is it possible to have amavisd only spamcheck the domains listed in
@local_domains_acl?
I've found that even for domains not listed in that array, that it still
goes and runs the whole spamc checking process, even though it won't add the
spam head
Hi,
I noticed the other day that the latest version of spamass-milter (I don't
know how long the feature has been there) has a cmd line option to block
mail that exceeds a certain score so this might help you if you are running
sendmail.
What I'd really like to do is to be able to define a separa
> There should never be more than (--max-children) + 1 spamd processes
> running; if anyone can catch a server doing otherwise, and figure out
> *why*, we'd much appreciate it ;)
This was a bit of a coincidence. Read this email this morning, and then
30mins ago my SA server slowed to a absolute cr
Anyone seen this? It seems bent on choosing 4pm.
The date on the box is correct. Hope I'm not missing something incredibly
obvious :)
assassin# zcat /var/log/maillog.0.gz | ./sa-stats.pl -T 15 -l - -s
'2004-10-31 00:00:00' -e '2004-10-31 23:
59:58'
Report Title : SpamAssassin - Spam Statisti
I noticed a significant improvement with 3.0 - especially with drugs related
messages.
On 29/10/04 8:21 AM, "Jeff Ramsey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63? I'm running
> 2.63 and my friend who owns an ISP just upgraded to ver 3, and he
> clai
> 89 a minute! Wow! What else do you run on that machine? (Do you run your
> other email server software there or is it a dedicated SA box? Do you also
> run a virus scanner for example?)
Hiya,
It runs FreeBSD 4.8 (with SMP kernel of course) and sendmail + SA 3.0.1 -
that's it, nothing else
> This is what I don't get. If you can handle an avg of 500/hr, which oh,
> wait... that's per hour. Ah, OK. That's 8/min. I'm doing an avg of 48/min
> (255/min max). But I swear someone else had a throughput higher than that
> who was not having CPU issues.
>
> ANYONE? What kind of thro
Hi Robert,
> Why couldn't you simply install another perfectly running copy of SA
> on server A, and let the users on that machine call spamc directly on
> that machine?
I'd prefer the one copy so I can maintain the one ruleset, Bayesian
database, AWL etc.
Cheers
Gav
Definitely not, I'm using SA 3.0.1 on a dual 1.13ghz P3 with 2gb RAM with
SCSI, processing a fair bit of mail.
I have 25 spamd children running, and the load is typically like this ;
> w
9:46AM up 9 days, 13:06, 1 user, load averages: 1.14, 1.46, 1.59
Cheers
Gav
On 28/10/04 9:13 AM, "emai
Hi,
I have 2 servers. Server A & Server B.
Server B has a perfectly running copy of Spam Assassin 3.0.1 running on it,
and is acting as a "MX Proxy" doing SA systemwide via milter for those
domains going through it.
I want Server A, which is a mail server which a few thousand POP boxes, to
be ab
20 matches
Mail list logo
