Why don't you try Amavisd-new? You wouldn't have the problem of waiting for SA before incoming email gets accepted.
Chris -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Van Pelt Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] SA 2.60 *VERY* slow. This is nuts. I'm going to have to back out 2.60 tonight if I can't get this resolved today. (Which I really hate to do; 2.60 does seem to catch more spam.) Other things I have done: Put the MIMEDefang directory on ramdisk. Turned on MIMEDefang queueing with a depth of 10. It's still having spells of rejecting connections as "it's busy" when CPU is less than 50%. (This is on a Solaris box.) On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:15:07AM -0700, Mike Van Pelt wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:49:24PM -0400, Colin A. Bartlett wrote: > > SA 2.60 is much faster on the tests. I recently upgraded and I > > noticed a speed increase. > > > > Also, if your times are all just over 30 seconds it's because the > > default time out is 30 secs. You can change the timeout in your > > local.cf file which I did before I upgraded to 2.60. I dropped it > > down to 5-10 secs and it worked fine. But, as the previous reply > > mentioned, the problem is probably Orbs and Osirusoft which both > > don't existing and are timing out after 30 seconds. Disabling those > > would get the job done too. > > I'm having a major mail slowdown problem since upgrading. > > I'm running Spam Assassin 2.60 via MIMEdefang 2.36 on Solaris. > > vmstat shows plenty of free memory. > > iostat shows service time of disk around 15 ms. > > I've got all the RBL rules scored as zero, and have set the > "skip_rbl_checks" flag to one. I also set the scores for all the *ZOR > tests and the DCC test to zero. > > Still, 2.60 seems to be *much* slower than 2.54. And I'm seeing some > odd behavior... When there's a backlog of mail to be tested, I expect > to see the CPU at 100% 100% of the time, pretty much. I'm seeing CPU > much less than that, while it's rejecting incoming mail "No Free > Slaves." > > What could it be doing? > > On a related issue: > > Is there a way to have SpamAssassin accept the mail from > the sending host right away and queue it for spam checking, rather > than rejecting connections? Or is this a milter limitation? > > -- > Mike Van Pelt email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 408-433-4282 > Pager: 800-533-4559 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or web www.skytel.com, pin 5334559 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people > who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: > http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk -- Mike Van Pelt email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 408-433-4282 Pager: 800-533-4559 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] or web www.skytel.com, pin 5334559 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
