Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

rom: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jdow wrote: 70_sare_evilnum0.cf # snap 70_sare_evilnum1.cf # snap 70_sare_evilnum2.cf # snap If you can in ANY WAY use the DNS based tests do so. Those sets are HUGE and lead to incredibly large memory footprints. Erm, J.. evilnum is NOT replaced by a

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

On Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2006 01:31 Kai Schaetzl wrote: > > That list would most definetly ... get your cat pregnant! > Hm, quite powerful medicine then, hm? ;-) Probably he shouldn't filter those DRUGS spam then and buy some of these. I'm sure some sell anti baby pills for cats. *g* mfg zmi -- /

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jdow wrote: 70_sare_evilnum0.cf # snap 70_sare_evilnum1.cf # snap 70_sare_evilnum2.cf # snap If you can in ANY WAY use the DNS based tests do so. Those sets are HUGE and lead to incredibly large memory footprints. Erm, J.. evilnum is NOT replaced by a

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

jdow wrote: > 70_sare_evilnum0.cf # snap > 70_sare_evilnum1.cf # snap > 70_sare_evilnum2.cf # snap > > If you can in ANY WAY use the DNS based tests do so. Those sets > are HUGE and lead to incredibly large memory footprints. Erm, J.. evilnum is NOT replaced by a DNS test.. you're thinking of big

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

James Lay wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 07:27:13 -0600: > yesterday I decided to get gutsy and use just about all the > rules from SARE. Be careful with any rulesets that are larger than 100 KB. And you use rulesets that are not intended to be used with SA 3 at all because there are better alterna

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

Chris Santerre wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 13:30:13 -0400: > That list would most definetly ... get your cat pregnant! Hm, quite powerful medicine then, hm? ;-) Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

To: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Spamassassin" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 07:30 Subject: Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint I am on V3.02. I certainly would be interesting to know which one of these is causing the problem. Dp. On 17 May 2006 at

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

Do not use: 70_sare_evilnum0.cf # snap 70_sare_evilnum1.cf # snap 70_sare_evilnum2.cf # snap {^_^} - Original Message - From: "Dermot Paikkos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Spamassassin" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 07:10 Subject: Re: Minimizing spamd's me

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hello all! Soo.yesterday I decided to get gutsy and use just about all the rules from SARE. Here's my rulesdujour config: TRUSTED_RULESETS="ANTIDRUG BLACKLIST BLACKLIST_URI BOGUSVIRUS RANDOMVAL SARE_ADULT SARE_BAYES_POISON_NXM SARE_BML SARE_EVILNUMBER

RE: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

Title: RE: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint Holy crap! Is blacklist_URI the wstearns port over? Good grief don't use that! Just use SURBL or URIBL. That list would most definetly crush your server and get your cat pregnant! --Chris > -Original Message- > Fr

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

Soo.yesterday I decided to get gutsy and use just about all the rules from SARE. Here's my rulesdujour config: TRUSTED_RULESETS="ANTIDRUG BLACKLIST BLACKLIST_URI BOGUSVIRUS RANDOMVAL SARE_ADULT SARE_BAYES_POISON_NXM SARE_BML SARE_EVILNUMBERS0 SARE_EVILNUMBERS1 SARE_EVILNUMBERS2 SARE_FRAUD SA

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

James Lay wrote: > Hello all! > > Soo.yesterday I decided to get gutsy and use just about all the > rules from SARE. Here's my rulesdujour config: > > TRUSTED_RULESETS="ANTIDRUG If you have SA 3.0.0 or higher, remove antidrug. These rules are included in SA, and this ruleset is only for us

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

I am on V3.02. I certainly would be interesting to know which one of these is causing the problem. Dp. On 17 May 2006 at 8:19, James Lay wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:10:45 +0100 > "Dermot Paikkos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I wrote about this yesterday. > > > > USER PID %CPU

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:10:45 +0100 "Dermot Paikkos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote about this yesterday. > > USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME > COMMAND > > nobody 17140 1.3 13.1 194984 169432 ? S09:49 3:58 spamd > child > nobody 18656 1.3 10.

Re: Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

I wrote about this yesterday. USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND nobody 17140 1.3 13.1 194984 169432 ? S09:49 3:58 spamd child nobody 18656 1.3 10.4 159208 134328 ? R10:08 3:43 spamd child nobody 21371 1.1 12.7 191072 164440 ?

Minimizing spamd's memory footprint

Hello all! Soo.yesterday I decided to get gutsy and use just about all the rules from SARE. Here's my rulesdujour config: TRUSTED_RULESETS="ANTIDRUG BLACKLIST BLACKLIST_URI BOGUSVIRUS RANDOMVAL SARE_ADULT SARE_BAYES_POISON_NXM SARE_BML SARE_EVILNUMBERS0 SARE_EVILNUMBERS1 SARE_EVILNUMBERS2 SA