Thats just the thing, something was wrong but the system already has 2
gigs of memory. It appear that issue has been resolved though.
Thanks
Robert
> Adding memory is generally the cheapest and simplest way to handle machine
> overload in most cases. One should also carefully trim the maximum number
> of children so that SA comfortably fits entirely in RAM without hitting
> the swap file. When SA hits the swap file it very suddenly becomes very
> very slow. Off hand I'd suspect the sa_blacklist file would be quite
> redundant with and stale relative to the various BL tests.
>
> {^_^}
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> Yes server was getting overloaded. So I went through all my old rules
>> and
>> deleted them. Went from 36 rules down to 15 rules. Apparently there were
>> a
>> couple that were obsolete. Also I noticed I had a sa-blacklist.cf file
>> with thousands of email addresses I got from some site awhile back. It
>> was
>> a huge file. I also noticed the same file was being used for qmail,
>> badmailfrom file. So when I removed the sa-blacklist.cf file all of a
>> sudden I had a ton of memory available and the memory spamd used was a
>> fraction of what it was using originally. Again dont know if it was the
>> sa-blacklist.cf file. I know it wasnt the other cf files I removed
>> because
>> after I removed those the spamd processes were still using a lot of
>> resources.
>>
>> As you can tell Im not the most knowledgeable when it comes to running
>> SA
>> so thats why I was asking about these other rules I found.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Robert
>>
>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>>>I been trying to "optimize" SA on my system and decided to look at the
>>>> rules I have that SA uses. Im using qmail with SA 3.1 on Fedora Core
>>>> 2.
>>>> I
>>>> started SA in debug mode and noticed a bunch of rules running in
>>>> another
>>>> folder on top of what I have in my up to date rules folder. The rules
>>>> in
>>>> this other folder are in /usr/share/spamassassin. Should I delete all
>>>> of
>>>> these rules or do they need to be there?
>>>>
>>>> 10_misc.cf
>>>> 20_drugs.cf
>>>> 20_phrases.cf
>>>> 25_body_tests_es.cf
>>>> 30_text_fr.cf
>>>> 20_anti_ratware.cf
>>>> 20_fake_helo_tests.cf
>>>> 20_porn.cf
>>>> 25_hashcash.cf
>>>> 30_text_nl.cf
>>>> 20_body_tests.cf
>>>> 20_head_tests.cf
>>>> 20_ratware.cf
>>>> 25_spf.cf
>>>> 30_text_pl.cf
>>>> 20_compensate.cf
>>>> 20_html_tests.cf
>>>> 20_uri_tests.cf
>>>> 25_uribl.cf
>>>> 50_scores.cf
>>>> 20_dnsbl_tests.cf
>>>> 20_meta_tests.cf
>>>> 23_bayes.cf
>>>> 30_text_de.cf
>>>> 60_whitelist.cf
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if its a lot.
>>>
>>> It's not very much compared to what I run.
>>>
>>> Only you can define your "should". You know your conditions far better
>>> than any of us. Is your machine overloaded? If not then why "optimize"
>>> when it means it's very likely more spam will leak through? In my case
>>> optimize meant going to over 45 rule sets along with extensive
>>> user_prefs files. The machine spends about 141 seconds per hour
>>> filtering
>>> email. This 4% load does not materially affect its performance with
>>> anything else it does. So YMMV takes on a very strong meaning in this
>>> context.
>>>
>>> {^_^}
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Bartlett
>> Digital Phoenix iTechnologies
>
>
Robert Bartlett
Digital Phoenix iTechnologies
