It's interesting to me that your chosen example of "doing it right" is
in fact doing 2 very wrong things (bl.spamcop.net as a blacklist, and
sender callback).
Further, I and several other people mentioned the same basic setups as
this one (minus the 2 mistakes I just mentioned), and I am in fact (and
said so) doing several things before SA specifically to reduce the load
of SA.
I usually think your messages start with well intentioned ideas that
just go off into wrong turns, but this one seems to indicate a more
fundamental problem in your thought processes.
Marc Perkel wrote:
OK - it's interesting that of all of you who responded this is the only
person who is doing it right. I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised
that so few people are preprocessing their email to reduce the SA load.
As we all know SA is very processor and memory expensive.
Personally, I'm filtering 1600 domains and I route less than 1% of
incoming email through SA. SA does do a good job on the remaining 1%
that I can't figure out with blacklists and whitelists and Exim tricks,
but if I ran everything through SA I'd have to have a rack of dedicated
SA servers.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 schrieb Marc Perkel:
As opposed to preprocessing before using SA to reduce the load. (ie.
using blacklist and whitelist before SA)
I use:
At rcpt time:
callout to recipient
zen.spamhaus.org <- Catches 90%
bl.spamcop.net
list.dsbl.org
callout to sender
At data time:
clamd (malware is rejected)
spamassassin (>10 Rejected, <10 add headers)
I think i will lower the spamassassin scores to 8 in the near future.
At the moment less then 5% spam reaches spamassasin.
