Am 20.10.2014 um 18:03 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 20:04:11 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
a perfect trained bayes on the inbound spamfirewall
* after recently a account was hacked and sent spam
(luckily not massive by rate-limits) which would have
been clearly caught by SA/spamass
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 20:04:11 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
a perfect trained bayes on the inbound spamfirewall
> >> * after recently a account was hacked and sent spam
> >> (luckily not massive by rate-limits) which would have
> >> been clearly caught by SA/spamass-milter i consider
> >>
Am 17.10.2014 um 19:45 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:59:30 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
does SA need anything to recognize a rsynced bayes on similar setups
to load the new version or is it anyways reopened for each connection
by spamd child?
I think so, and I don't recall any special han
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:59:30 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Hi
>
> does SA need anything to recognize a rsynced bayes on similar setups
> to load the new version or is it anyways reopened for each connection
> by spamd child?
I think so, and I don't recall any special handling being needed for
sa-
Am 17.10.2014 um 12:02 schrieb Joolee:
File base bayes is actually quite slow. Isn't it an option for you to
use an sql replicated master-slave set or cluster or per haps Redis
master-slave replication?
performance is not a problem here, no high traffic on the submission
servers and on the in
On 10/17/2014 12:02 PM, Joolee wrote:
It would be nice if we'd be able to use a clustered nosql database though.
nosql like what?
something like Cassandra? CouchDB? for Bayes they're slower than file
DB.(tested, dumped)
If your traffic size justifies it, till Redis cluster is released, loa
File base bayes is actually quite slow. Isn't it an option for you to use
an sql replicated master-slave set or cluster or per haps Redis
master-slave replication?
It would be nice if we'd be able to use a clustered nosql database though.
Kind regards,
Peter Overtoom
On 17 October 2014 11:59, Re
