On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >It *is* faster than spamd, tho - when I was using spamc/spamd, it would
> >take 30+ seconds to scan; amavisd-new does it in like 3 or 4.
>
> It should be, AFAIR, it disable RBL check that takes some time (if nop
> CPU resources).
I'm finding the delays from RBL arn't too bad. I'm using RBL+ , 2
Cluecentral checks and relays.osirusoft.com with RBL+ and Cluecentral
being slaved on the mail boxes themselves.
Here is the distribution I'm getting. First column is number of occurances
and the second column is the number of seconds. 1% taking over 10 seconds
is acceptable IMHO. This is with spamc/spamd
2805 0
6102 1
2892 2
536 3
274 4
854 5
842 6
299 7
66 8
82 9
70 10
77 11
40 12
14 13
9 14
9 15
9 16
2 17
4 18
4 19
5 20
3 21
7 22
5 23
1 24
3 26
1 27
1 30
1 35
2 36
3 37
2 39
1 43
1 51
--
Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
