On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 17:03 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > 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.) > > I believe I have this right Karsten
:0 fw : $ASSASSINLOCK * < 150000 | /usr/local/bin/spamc -f I've trimmed my third party rule sets down to the sought rules and disabled unnecessary rule sets I had setup in my local.cf -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
