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
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 slow process in
amavis that is caus
