On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 03:43:18PM -0500, Frank Pineau wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:32:37 -0700, you wrote: > > > > >What would be accomplished by its listening on 0.0.0.0? What would be the > > >downside of doing so? > > > > > > Seems to me that in a system with multiple mail servers, you could > > do all the spam checking on a single box. > > That really depends how much traffic you get. At one of the instances > I maintain, we have one mail server and 3 spamd servers. Remember, > SpamAssassin is largely CPU bound. When the mail volume increases, > the CPUs start to really heat up.
What kind of msg/min are you seeing, both on the single mail server and via SA? What kind of hardware is it and are network checks enabled? Are per-user configs enabled? (Only trying to gauge our performance with others that are using SA.) -- Kelsey Cummings - [EMAIL PROTECTED] sonic.net System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = 7F 59 43 1B 44 8A 0D 57 91 08 73 73 7A 48 90 C5 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
