I don't see why this method could not also be used for bayes_seen.
I was not aware bayes_seen would grow forever so I am going to implement
this
on my own system next week.
ALTER TABLE bayes_seen ADD lastupdate timestamp(14) NOT NULL;
Then wait a few weeks before implementing:
DELETE FROM bay
I *think* you're in agreement with what I just said. Using last-accessed
time instead of hit-count makes substantially more sense.
By moving AWL to SQL this can be accomplished. Here is a sample for MySQL:
Add a new field:
ALTER TABLE awl ADD lastupdate timestamp(14) NOT NULL;
If you have a sm
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, January 12, 2007 02:14, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>> form of expiry is one reason why I say the AWL isn't really ready for
>> production use on any servers that have decent mail volume)
>>
>
> if one entry is just deleted when will there be records with 2 ?
>
I don't
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, January 12, 2007 02:14, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>> form of expiry is one reason why I say the AWL isn't really ready for
>> production use on any servers that have decent mail volume)
>>
>
> if one entry is just deleted when will there be records with 2 ?
>
On Fri, January 12, 2007 03:35, Christopher Jett wrote:
> OK - thanks. So, for example, it's safe to delete the bayes_seen
> file after it gets over a certain size? Is there a particular size
> after which performance degrades significantly?
i remember that file based bayes is huge, where sql
On Fri, January 12, 2007 02:14, Matt Kettler wrote:
> form of expiry is one reason why I say the AWL isn't really ready for
> production use on any servers that have decent mail volume)
if one entry is just deleted when will there be records with 2 ?
awl is tricky but good, we have to live with
Christopher Jett wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> For the autowhitelist database, grab the check_whitelist script out of
>> the tools subdirectory in the tarball. Run check_whitelist --clean on
>> the AWL file. This will eliminate any "one-off" entries from it. Not
>> much of an expiry, but its a start. (note: t
Christopher Jett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK - thanks. So, for example, it's safe to delete the bayes_seen file after
> it
> gets over a certain size? Is there a particular size after which performance
> degrades significantly?
>From what I've googled it should be OK to delete bayes_see
On Jan 11, 2007, at 7:14 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris Jett wrote:
I am seeing a problem where my bayes_seen and autowhitelist files are
HUGE. My bayes_seen is 2.05 GB and my autowhitelist file is 4.02 GB.
Forcing an expiry on the database doesn't seem to do anything. What
do I need to do?
-
Chris Jett wrote:
> I am seeing a problem where my bayes_seen and autowhitelist files are
> HUGE. My bayes_seen is 2.05 GB and my autowhitelist file is 4.02 GB.
> Forcing an expiry on the database doesn't seem to do anything. What
> do I need to do?
> --
SA doesn't, at present, support expiry
I am seeing a problem where my bayes_seen and autowhitelist files are
HUGE. My bayes_seen is 2.05 GB and my autowhitelist file is 4.02
GB. Forcing an expiry on the database doesn't seem to do anything.
What do I need to do?
--
Chris Jett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
11 matches
Mail list logo
