On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 17:44 -0500, Chris wrote:
> Thanks for the input John, I can accept 30 or 45 seconds of drive access
> however when it comes to 300 I can't accept that. And you're absolutely
> correct, the problem is my lack of memory I realize that now.
> Just one user, me, though I already have procmail setup to not pass mail
> destined for mailing list through SA or ClamAv. I had SA set to check
> message size less than 250k in my procmailrc I've dropped it to 50k and
Unless the limit of 50k results in quite some spam ending up unprocessed
by SA, I doubt this will help.
Dropping large-ish third-party rule sets, if any, is much more likely to
make a noticeable difference. SA, as well as ClamAV. If memory serves me
right, you are using ClamAV third-party signatures -- some of which have
been reported to hog memory galore.
> will see what happens. I could probably drop some of the extra rulesets
> I run also which would probably cut down on access until I can upgrade
> my memory. I'm going to consider this thread closed then as being solved
> with "upgrade to more memory". Many thanks to all who replied and
> offered suggestions. And to the SA Team, keep up the great work!
Since you mentioned procmail, your spamc calling recipe is *with*
locking, right? Limiting concurrent SA processes pretty much to one as
far as filtering is concerned. (As Bernd and previously others in this
thread have pointed out, limit the concurrency.)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
