On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 19:01 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >>Note that "phase 2" reflects the time in seconds to scan 2000 messages using
> >>spamc. Mysql and SDBM are nearly 3 times faster at this.
> >>
> >>Since sql is well-tested, that might be a better way for you to go. SDBM has
> >>some issues.
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:29 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>For DNS, well, DNS lookups are by nature slow, and SA makes a lot of them. You
>>can improve the speed a little by running a caching nameserver on the local
>>host, but that's not a "fix-all".
>
>
> Ah, that i
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 17:41 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>You can improve speed by:
>>1) disabling things, such as bayes URIBLS and RBLs
>>2) If you are using bayes switching from DB_File BayesStore to SQL
>>(recommended)
>>or SDBM (fast bu
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 17:41 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> You can improve speed by:
> 1) disabling things, such as bayes URIBLS and RBLs
> 2) If you are using bayes switching from DB_File BayesStore to SQL
> (recommended)
> or SDBM (fast but not well tested) will yield c
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Having an issue messages delayed running SA 3.1 with postfix 2.2.7 and
> amavis 2.3.3 on FreeBSD 5.4 dual proc xeon 2.4's with 1GB RAM. Messages
> come in as queue active and don't get picked up by amavis for an hour
> sometimes. I am trying to be sure that is is not a s
