I would like to make a quick comment to everyone who has helped in this thread:
Great job. Seriously. Some good answers here. Can we we all take a minute to make sure these answers are posted somewhere on the SA wiki's for future reference? Its been a while since we had a push for additions.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/
and
http://www.exit0.us/
Your chance to preserve your helpful info in the anals of history. (That almost sounds painful!)
Thanks!
Chris Santerre
SysAdmin and SARE/URIBL ninja
http://www.uribl.com
http://www.rulesemporium.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:42 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: General assistance
>
>
> I was doing some reading and I am beginning to look into
> Rules Du Jour. I
> see there are quite a large number of rulesets to choose from
> when utilizing
> this. Does anyone have any advice on what ones would be safe?
>
> Ed
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Talk is cheap since supply always exceeds demand.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DAve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:30 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: General assistance
>
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > DAve wrote:
> >
> >>Ed Russell wrote:
> >>
> >>>2. Once this is in place should I re-activate pzyor, dcc or razor?
> >>>Is one better than the other? Are there advantages to either?
> >>
> >>I use neither, though I think I am in the minority. I
> routinely check
> >> my spam and I have found that bayes, rayzor, dcc, and most of the
> >>SARE rules catch little if any spam "for me". So I don't
> run them and
> >>save the CPU for additional spamd processes.
> >
> >
> > That's odd. Bayes, Razor2, DCC work quite well for me.
> Check out my
> > stats from today:
> >
> > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES
> %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
> > %OFHAM
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 1280 5.02
> 48.05 83.33
> > 0.98
> > 2 RAZOR2_CHECK 1259 4.94
> 47.26 81.97
> > 1.15
> > 3 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 1164 4.56
> 43.69 75.78
> > 0.27
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Razor2 caught 83% of the spam, DCC caught 68%, and Bayes got 64%.
> >
>
> They tagged plenty of spam for me, no doubt about that. But
> they caught
> only a few spam that SA wouldn't have caught without them. It is rare
> that bayes points on top of existing points ever made the
> score squeek
> over the threshold.
>
> Not using them however, dropped my CPU, network, and memory
> requirements
> so much I could run twice as many spamd processes. Processing
> time went
> from an average of 10 seconds (with all SARE rules, bayes,
> DCC, Razor)
> to 2 seconds (limited SARE, no bayes, no razor, no dcc).
>
> All the SARE rules loaded makes spamd run about 45-75mb each,
> selective
> SARE rules and I can see spamd drop to 23-35mb. More spamd,
> faster spamd.
>
> Of course tommorrow, everything could change ;^)
>
> DAve
>
>
>
