On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:45:10 -0400 Michael B Allen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:56 AM, David Jones <djo...@ena.com> wrote: > >>> given that install unbound as local resolver takes 2 minutes it's > >>> even not worth to argue on that topic and a spamfilter without > >>> RBL's and URIBL's is just nonsense > > > >>I have installed a caching DNS server before (albeit probably about > >>15 years ago). But it just shouldn't be necessary. > > > > It can be necessary if you have enough mail volume. > > That's not what I'm saying. It should not be necessary to run a > full-blown DNS server for SA to do it's queries.
You don't need a full-blown DNS server, you just need a resolver which is typically ~ 100kB plus whatever space you want for caching. Mine is currently using 9MB of resident memory compared with 103MB for a single spamd child process. This handles DNS more efficiently than SpamAssassin could. The closest SA itself could get is to have a dedicated process - essentially reinventing the wheel with a heavyweight perl resolver. But that isn't a general solution because spamd isn't the only way of using the SA libraries. The generic solution would be to use a shared database with all the overheads and complications that that implies.
