spamd -d -L -a -c
and
spamc -f
for production systems. But I don't much care for DNS-blacklists. If you're using SA on high volumes of mail, I would think you want to carefully think about your DNS design before removing the -L. If you're using SA on low volumes, I think you still want to consider whether the lengthy lookup times, common versioning problems, and the frequent failures for stuff like Razor are really worth the low hitrate they seem to give me. Others apparently find them more useful, but I have to say I don't. Also, remember that the statistics for SA's performance are quoted based on NO NETWORK TESTS, so clearly things work very well even without those tests.
C
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 14:31, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 13:01, brad wrote: > Are you recomending spamd -d -L -D is ok and then call it with the > procmailrc of spamc -f Well, "recommend" is too strong a word, since I don't run a large volume mailserver to lots of customers.But I do know that I run spamd -d -L -c and put spamc -f in my procmailrc and it takes a small fraction of a second per message, and spamassassin doesn't do noticeably better at filtering spam when I slow it down by adding the razor and RBL checks. Perhaps Craig's suggestions will let you get the performance while still running razor and RBL tests. I don't use -D unless I turn it on to track down a problem. I would expect running with it to slow down performance a lot. The -c option is literally a matter of preference. I use it, but that's totally up to how someone wants to configure their setup. -- sidney _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
