On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, alexus wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
How fast are non-SA DNS queries on that box? If they take ten seconds to
return an answer, SA is not the culprit.
On 01.04.09 17:53, alexus wro
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> >> >> > How fast are non-S
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> >> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> >> >> > How fast are non-SA DNS queries on that box? If they take ten seconds
> >> >> > to
> >>
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> >> > How fast are non-SA DNS queries on that box? If they take ten seconds to
>> >> > return an answer, S
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> >> > How fast are non-SA DNS queries on that box? If they take ten seconds to
> >> > return an answer, SA is not the culprit.
> >
> > On 01.04.09 17:53, alexus wrote:
> >> w
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> > How fast are non-SA DNS queries on that box? If they take ten seconds to
>> > return an answer, SA is not the culprit.
>
> On 01.04.09 17:53, alexus wrote:
>> without dns they
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > How fast are non-SA DNS queries on that box? If they take ten seconds to
> > return an answer, SA is not the culprit.
On 01.04.09 17:53, alexus wrote:
> without dns they are 0.1 - 1.5s, with DNS they are ~7s
by "non-SA DNS" he did not mean
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Chris wrote:
Using a local caching nameserver with 127.0.0.1 as my nameserver, BIND
9.5.0-P2, Net::DNS 0.65. I notice that the slowest one shows:
[14035] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.63
and the faster one shows:
[17352] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.65
Why the difference
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, April 1, 2009 23:22, alexus wrote:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval
I had to disable it, if someone can suggest something in order to
make it work faster i'm all ears
apt-get install bind
change /etc/resolv.conf to have just
nam
On Wed, April 1, 2009 23:22, alexus wrote:
> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval
>
> I had to disable it, if someone can suggest something in order to
> make it work faster i'm all ears
apt-get install bind
change /etc/resolv.conf to have just
nameserver 127.0.0.1
restart bind
test w
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 15:23 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>
> So /etc/resolv.conf has 127.0.0.1 as the only resolver?
>
Semi-related to this thread, why when running two different spams
through "spamassassin -D -t do I get widely different lookup times:
[17232] dbg: async: timing: 0.042 . NS:spamh
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, alexus wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
How fast are non-SA DNS queries on that box? If they take ten seconds
to return an answer, SA is not the culprit.
without dns they are 0.1 - 1.5s, with DNS they are ~7s
...what precisely do you mean by "w
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, alexus wrote:
>
>> okay, we like really far away from original thread, i said that
>> SpamAssassin runs really slow for me and on top of that I even found which
>> plugin causing that, which is this:
>>
>> loadplugin Mail::Sp
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, alexus wrote:
okay, we like really far away from original thread, i said that
SpamAssassin runs really slow for me and on top of that I even found
which plugin causing that, which is this:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval
I had to disable it, if someone can
alexus wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM, David Morton wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:59 +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
I just hope that as good as SA is will be written in some programming
language, and not scripting language. Even Java would be better.
Dude,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM, David Morton wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:59 +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>> I just hope that as good as SA is will be written in some programming
>>> language, and not scripting language. Even Java would be better.
>>
>> Dude,
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:59 +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>> I just hope that as good as SA is will be written in some programming
>> language, and not scripting language. Even Java would be better.
>
> Dude, you just lost a credit point... ;)
>
> Everyone, if you fe
17 matches
Mail list logo
