Speaking of network tests...
Other than "traditional" IP-address-based RBL lookups, SURBL/URIBL lookups, and
network traffic for Razor, DCC, etc... is there anything ELSE for which a test
requires network traffic which depends on a someone else's remote server that
still runs even if/when SURBL
rbs admins are going to allow you the rsync.
I hope i can help you ??
Stefan
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Ramprasad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Juli 2006 11:31
An: Stefan Klewer
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: Network tests slowing down spamassas
> Hi,
> i think the best way to reduce the network traffic regarding to the network
> test is to do all network test locally.
> we are serving many list locally. For example spamhaus (commercial
> agreement),spamcop (one time fee), njabl, sorbs , cbl.abuseat, dsbl (all
> free). We are using a rbl
Ramprasad wrote:
> Hi,
> SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
> 200k mails an hour at peak times )
> But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
> network and all hell breaks loose. Mailq shoots up and SA starts timing
> out.
> Prob
On 7/13/2006 11:06 AM, Ramprasad wrote:
So what is the best way to reduce network traffic. We are already
getting the sbl-xbl lists from spamhaus so as to serve those lists
locally , can I get any other lists locally ? Commercial agreements
also are ok.
Many/most lists will provide rsync ac
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:17 -0400, Craig Morrison wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> > Hi,
> > SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
> > 200k mails an hour at peak times )
> > But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
> > network and all hell
Ramprasad wrote:
Hi,
SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
200k mails an hour at peak times )
But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
network and all hell breaks loose. Mailq shoots up and SA starts timing
out.
Probably because I
Ramprasad wrote:
Hi,
SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
200k mails an hour at peak times )
But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
network and all hell breaks loose. Mailq shoots up and SA starts timing
out.
Probably because I
Hi,
SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
200k mails an hour at peak times )
But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
network and all hell breaks loose. Mailq shoots up and SA starts timing
out.
Probably because I have enabled all ki
