On 04/24/2014 04:28 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Axb wrote:
On 04/24/2014 04:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Nick I wrote:
> Finally i found message caused high load.
> > It looks like one message sent all the time from ticket system.
> Message size is ~4M. W
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Axb wrote:
On 04/24/2014 04:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Nick I wrote:
> Finally i found message caused high load.
>
> It looks like one message sent all the time from ticket system.
> Message size is ~4M. We scan messages with this size in amavis.
On 04/24/2014 04:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Nick I wrote:
Finally i found message caused high load.
It looks like one message sent all the time from ticket system.
Message size is ~4M. We scan messages with this size in amavis.
Content of message is complex and has multipl
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Nick I wrote:
Finally i found message caused high load.
It looks like one message sent all the time from ticket system.
Message size is ~4M. We scan messages with this size in amavis.
Content of message is complex and has multiple items
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Tran
Finally i found message caused high load.
It looks like one message sent all the time from ticket system.
Message size is ~4M. We scan messages with this size in amavis.
Content of message is complex and has multiple items
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: ap
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Nick I wrote:
Another interesting thing. Today when daily cron executed at 5 am load
calmed to ~0. As it was before. Sa-update executed at that time.
Amavisd has been reloaded at 7 am and load raised back again.
Also i see that some messages checked 150329 ms, 158742 ms. But
Nick I skrev den 2014-04-23 19:14:
Can anyone suggest how to look inside tests_pri_0 ?
disable BodyEVAL plugin as a first step, if load is not low then its not
that plugin that causing its problem
to take it all, one could test with just check plugin enabled, and add
one by one to see with
Another interesting thing. Today when daily cron executed at 5 am load
calmed to ~0. As it was before. Sa-update executed at that time.
Amavisd has been reloaded at 7 am and load raised back again.
Also i see that some messages checked 150329 ms, 158742 ms. But most
messages checked ~400ms.
I used
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 02:43:25 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 22:31 +0300, Nick I wrote:
> >
> > Here is timing from amavis. tests_pri_0 is around 90% all the time :
> > amavis[26002]: (26002-05) TIMING-SA total 759 ms - parse: 1.92
> > (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 31
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 22:31 +0300, Nick I wrote:
> I use SpamAssassin version 3.3.1 running on Perl version 5.10.1,
> amavisd-new-2.8.0-8.el6 as before-queue filter.
> Today for unknown reason i noticed high load on my server. Mail flow
> is as usual. About 8k in hour checked by amavisd.
>
> Here
Have you tried compiling the rules with sa-compile. It speeds up
everything.
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to what that specific test does.
Hi,
I use SpamAssassin version 3.3.1 running on Perl version 5.10.1,
amavisd-new-2.8.0-8.el6 as before-queue filter.
Today for unknown reason i n
Hi,
I use SpamAssassin version 3.3.1 running on Perl version 5.10.1,
amavisd-new-2.8.0-8.el6 as before-queue filter.
Today for unknown reason i noticed high load on my server. Mail flow is as
usual. About 8k in hour checked by amavisd.
Here is timing from amavis. tests_pri_0 is around 90% all the
Thanks all for tips!
Anyway, I disabled fuzzy_ocr plugin and cpu load was reduced to ~2.
The results without fuzzy are good enough.
But, I'll go to make rcpto checks too, to reject invalid messages during
the initial SMTP conversation, which is a good thing...
Ollie Acheson escreveu:
On Fri, N
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 04:12:44PM -0200, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
>
> Ok, validrcptto seems to be nice for me...
> I just can't forget to insert all -default aliases (qmail-default) and
> use a validrcptto version with this support (to using with qmail-rocks)
>
> Thanks for all tips
>
In ca
re to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would
be necessary." -- James Madison
-Original Message-
From: Rejaine Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:27 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: razor and dcc : high c
Ok, validrcptto seems to be nice for me...
I just can't forget to insert all -default aliases (qmail-default) and
use a validrcptto version with this support (to using with qmail-rocks)
Thanks for all tips
Jim Maul escreveu:
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Like a text-file based (it's not a se
>
>
> Like a text-file based (it's not a security hole?!) or a ldap-replica on
> mail-server?
> I'm searching for more examples and other ideas and find this patch for
> qmail:
> http://qmail.jms1.net/patches/validrcptto.cdb.shtml
>
> I don't no if this patch is really necessary.. but it's a su
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Like a text-file based (it's not a security hole?!) or a ldap-replica on
mail-server?
I'm searching for more examples and other ideas and find this patch for
qmail:
http://qmail.jms1.net/patches/validrcptto.cdb.shtml
I don't no if this patch is really necessary.. but
Like a text-file based (it's not a security hole?!) or a ldap-replica on
mail-server?
I'm searching for more examples and other ideas and find this patch for
qmail:
http://qmail.jms1.net/patches/validrcptto.cdb.shtml
I don't no if this patch is really necessary.. but it's a sugestion too...
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
But I have various servers with qmail-ldap configuration, where the a
first server (simple qmail installation, without ldap) receives mails
from internet and check domain using rcpthosts only, does spam and virus
checks and them forwards the mail to the others qmail-
il which,
obviously, hugely decreased the traffic through spamassassin.
Ollie
-Original Message-
From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:50 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: razor and dcc : high cpu load
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
reased the traffic through spamassassin.
Ollie
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:50 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: razor and dcc : high cpu load
>
> Rejaine Monteiro
@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: razor and dcc : high cpu load
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
> my system had a high cpu load with spamassassin with network tests ,
> dcc + razor and fuzzy_ocr because off this, we are considering disable
> razor or dcc from tests...
>
> but we h
> my system had a high cpu load with spamassassin with network tests , dcc
> + razor and fuzzy_ocr
> because off this, we are considering disable razor or dcc from tests...
>
> but we have doubt about which is better: disable razor or dcc?
Isn't it better to disable fuzzy,
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
> my system had a high cpu load with spamassassin with network tests ,
> dcc + razor and fuzzy_ocr
> because off this, we are considering disable razor or dcc from
> tests...
>
> but we have doubt about which is better: disable razor or dcc?
>
>
my system had a high cpu load with spamassassin with network tests , dcc
+ razor and fuzzy_ocr
because off this, we are considering disable razor or dcc from tests...
but we have doubt about which is better: disable razor or dcc?
any recomendations??
spamd -d
-m 5")
Qmail-scanner statistics :
Average 123 Msgs / 5 min
Average 5 Viruses/5min
Average 95 Spams/5min
But we have some problems with high cpu load and spamd ( cpu load ~ 7,
8, 9)
What I'm doing wrong?
27 matches
Mail list logo
