At 11:06 AM 6/13/2005, Stefan Ewert wrote:
does anyone know about a option which speeds up spamassassin extremly:
order the tests: fastest first, getting slower , slowest is the last test in
the list (dns perhaps, razor, pyzor, dcc).
and now: stop testing the mail, as soon as spamscore is great
From: "Stefan Ewert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On another paw, more memory is generally a good way to speed up the
> > spamassassin operation. A good DNS setup is also required so that you
> > do not get delays in DNS lookups. Do not select DNS tests for sites
> > that no longer exist. That is a maj
> On another paw, more memory is generally a good way to speed up the
> spamassassin operation. A good DNS setup is also required so that you
> do not get delays in DNS lookups. Do not select DNS tests for sites
> that no longer exist. That is a major slow down.
>
sorry, i cant follow you, where ca
Some scores have negative values. Some of the negative values are
big enough to make 30 into a negative score.
This is a discussion that comes up quite often. And it's been decided
every time that no change should be made.
On another paw, more memory is generally a good way to speed up the
spamas
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:06:45PM +0200, Stefan Ewert wrote:
> does anyone know about a option which speeds up spamassassin extremly:
Used to exist in 2.4, didn't work and cause a bigger performance drag
than it provided anyway, so we took it out. There's talk about a new
way to add it back in s
