Am 29.02.2016 um 21:05 schrieb Charles Sprickman:
On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:23 AM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: Am 29.02.2016 um 06:24 schrieb Charles Sprickman:I’ve not had much luck with Bayes - when I had it enabled recently on a per-user basis it was just hitting the master DB server too hard with udpatesjust make a sitewide bayes (https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SiteWideBayesSetup) without autolearn / autoexpire and the default database in a folder read-only for the daemonI think I still have to stick with a db-backed option since I need to keep two SA servers in sync.
and i know that it don't matternothing easier then rsync the bayes-folder to several machines at the end of the learning script, we even share the side-wide bayes over webservices to external entities and so it coves around 5000 users at the moment in summary
I’ll try that today and see how the load looks. My concern with disabling autolearn is that then I’m the only one training. My spam probably looks like everyone else’s, but my ham is very different, lots list traffic and such.
you should be the only one who trains in most cases for several reasons * few to zero users train anough ham and spam for a proper bayes * wrong classified autolearn takes a wrong direction sooner or latergiven that we now for more than a year maintain a side-wide bayes for inbound MX re-used on submission servers to minimize the impact of hacked accounts and it works so much better than all the "user bayes" solutions the last decade it's the way to go if you *really* want proper operations
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
