On 8/16/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I think it's interesting that you somehow missed all the messages from people who described how they *do* filter prior to SA. Considering that you claim your setup never loses any mail, did you just forget to read them somehow? Claiming that there is one right way to use SA is just silly. There are so many different situations, and the right answer depends on the amount of mail you process and the type of users you have. Sending everything through SA might be a perfectly acceptable configuration for a small domain that wants a single point of control and simple configuration. What was the motivation behind your original post? What were you hoping to learn? > > 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. > > >
