I'll lower my price:
3 vouchers for medium BK menus :)
ok - enuff of OT :)
On 03/06/2013 05:10 PM, JK4 wrote:
Hmm, we have some BL460 G1s we're gonna throw out soon. Hopefully
some BL860 Itaniums as well next year.
You can have those as well :)
On 2013-03-06 17:04, Axb wrote:
On 03/06/2
Hmm, we have some BL460 G1s we're gonna throw out soon. Hopefully
some BL860 Itaniums as well next year.
You can have those as well :)
On 2013-03-06 17:04, Axb wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 04:51 PM, Martin
Gregorie wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Simon
Loewenthal wrote:
>>
>>>
On 03/06/2013 04:51 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM and AxB,
The system is a small low cost VM. The provider
(for some reason) only offers to move the server to a new box, instead
of adding an extra half gig, which is pretty poor.
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
> Hi KAM and AxB,
>
> The system is a small low cost VM. The provider
> (for some reason) only offers to move the server to a new box, instead
> of adding an extra half gig, which is pretty poor. I don't have the time
> to spare for
I have Razor and Pyzor running.
(Although Pyzor seems to give
errors these days with a "pyzor: error: TERMINATED, signal 15 (000f)"
even though .pyzor/servers is in the right place, and pyzor discover
downloads the server(s) correctly. Rather strange. )
Never used
iXhash. Shall look into thi
On 03/06/2013 04:07 PM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Guess what? After removal of,
local_phishing_reply.cf
99_anonwhois.cf
malware.blocklist.cf
the memory usage dropped to
15% of RAM.
Time to add more children into the mix.
Cheers, S
good to hear...
if not running already, Razor & Pyzor, ev
Guess what? After removal of,
local_phishing_reply.cf
99_anonwhois.cf
malware.blocklist.cf
the memory usage dropped to
15% of RAM.
Time to add more children into the mix.
Cheers, S
On
2013-03-06 15:55, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 3/6/2013 9:53 AM, Simon
Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> H
On 3/6/2013 9:53 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM and AxB,
The system is a small low cost VM. The provider (for some reason)
only offers to move the server to a new box, instead of adding an
extra half gig, which is pretty poor. I don't have the time to spare
for such a move for the mom
Hi KAM and AxB,
The system is a small low cost VM. The provider
(for some reason) only offers to move the server to a new box, instead
of adding an extra half gig, which is pretty poor. I don't have the time
to spare for such a move for the moment. Yep - It's 64bit : amd64.
Rule sets. I sha
On 3/6/2013 9:17 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Options are : /usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs -x -q --ipv4
--max-children 1 --timeout-child 180 --sql-config --nouser-config
--username spamd --helper-home-dir -s /var/log/spamd.log
--virtual-config-dir=/users/%d/%u -d --pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
On 03/06/2013 03:17 PM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM,
Options are : /usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs -x -q --ipv4
--max-children 1 --timeout-child 180 --sql-config --nouser-config
--username spamd --helper-home-dir -s /var/log/spamd.log
--virtual-config-dir=/users/%d/%u -d --pidfile=/var/run/s
Hi KAM,
Options are : /usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs -x -q --ipv4
--max-children 1 --timeout-child 180 --sql-config --nouser-config
--username spamd --helper-home-dir -s /var/log/spamd.log
--virtual-config-dir=/users/%d/%u -d --pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
( 1
child set because of lack of memo
On 3/5/2013 7:36 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
I just upgraded a small server from 3.3.1 to 3.3.2 (Debain Squeeze).
I notice that spamd now takes 64% of the memory which is 317 mb. This
is rather high in my opinion.
I realize this may well be a Debian specific question, but does
/spamassass
Hi all,
I just upgraded a small server from 3.3.1 to 3.3.2
(Debain Squeeze).
I notice that spamd now takes 64% of the memory
which is 317 mb. This is rather high in my opinion.
I realize this may
well be a Debian specific question, but does _spamassassin
3.3.2-2~bpo60+1_ have any performa
On 2006-08-09, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
> It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
> give or take some.)
I run SA on FreeBSD on an IBM M-Pro dual PII-400 with 512MB RAM.
Sendmail, IMA
From: "Michel Vaillancourt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<>Based on the bad case I ran his
machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
come i
> <>Based on the bad case I ran his
> machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
> on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
> capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
> come in batched there will be several minutes o
From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
{^_-} Joanne, who has a bad habit if running numbers. And I note he
might be able to run two instances to get SOME benefit from
paralleling the DNS lookups.
Point conceded :-D
<> That's DEADLY in political arguments when I bother to t
OTECTED]>
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
>>> "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>
>>>> > Hey all!
>>>> >
&g
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail wil
quot;James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey all!
>
> Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
> have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
> the SARE rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
Perhaps.
Do not run anything e
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
>> "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "James Lay&
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey all!
>
> Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
>
James Lay wrote:
I have almost 500 megs of swap. And Postfix and SpamAssassin are the
only things running on it. Thanks!
Swap is pretty much useless for anything but programs you need running
but rarely use. You can swap out a *tiny* bit of spamd, but that's
about it if you don't want ser
James Lay wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okw
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Hey all!
> >
> > Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
> > have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
>
> > Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
> > have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 pl
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey all!
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
Perhaps.
Do not run anything else with a si
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
> Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
> 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
> rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
I'm running 3.1.3 with a bunch of SARE and local rule
Hey all!
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
James
30 matches
Mail list logo
