Are there any optimizing options for SA (I mean the performance)? if we want to
run SA on our antispam system.
There are more than ten millions of messages coming into our system everyday.
>On Monday, January 23, 2006, 8:13:26 AM, Dan Bongert wrote:
>> I recently did an email server change/upgrade from Sendmail on FreeBSD (w/
>> Spamassassin 2.6.4) to Postfix on RHEL 3 (w/Spamassassin 3.1). On both
>> systems, Spamassassin is called from user's .procmailrc files--not every
>> user wants to be running SA (I'm not quite sure why).
>
>> I wasn't able to convert people's Bayes databases from one system to the
>> other--the Linux system didn't recognize them at all as valid DB files, so
>> everyone had to start Bayes over from scratch.
>
>> Here's my problem: the new SA doesn't work nearly as well as the old one.
>> Some of my users are reporting 50% false negatives in their inbox in the
>> morning, even after their Bayes autolearning has kicked in. We run a nightly
>> learning script for them, and have been telling everyone to put any and all
>> false negatives in the appropriate mailbox so that sa-learn can snag them.
>
>> For my own experiences, I'm seeing a lot more spam that's being autolearned
>> as ham--scores of 0.0 and even negative ones for things that to my eyes are
>> very obviously spam.
>
>> It's a pretty vanilla set up so far--are there any recommended optional
>> rules sets or tweaks I haven't discovered for 3.1 yet? Unfortunately, I
>> don't have any hard numbers comparing the set ups, just lots of complaints
>> that the new version isn't as good.
>
>You may want to check for a broken trust path. (See wiki.) Also
>be sure to enable network tests and apply for rsync access for
>RBL and SURBL zone files if you handle a lot of messages (>100k
>messages/day).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jeff C.
>--
>Jeff Chan
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.surbl.org/
>
>.
