Re: [spamdyke-users] Cache system

2007-10-22 Thread Sam Clippinger
Generally speaking, because spamdyke does not run as a daemon, any kind 
of caching is very difficult.  The cache would have to be disk-based, 
which can be tricky when the server is very busy and multiple instances 
of spamdyke are attempting to update the disk.  If the server isn't very 
busy, having a cache won't matter much.

For the two things you mentioned, DNS RBL and rDNS lookups, try 
installing a caching DNS server on the mail server.  You can configure 
it (or use iptables) to only allow queries from the local machine.  I 
think you'll be surprised how much it helps.

-- Sam Clippinger

Paulo Henrique wrote:
 Sam, I was wondering if it would be possible to implement a system of
 cache in spamdyke, I believe that improving the speed in RBL test and
 rDNS.
 A spammer usually tries to send messages to more than one account in
 the same domain, with the system cache, as soon as the first attempt
 was denied the ip address of origin would be stored in a file or
 directory and future attempts would be consulted in the cache, if the
 address is found in the cache the other tests should not be run, if
 not found the tests continue the normal procedure.
 
 I am thinking in a way to do this using bash script + iptables, but I
 think this would be a point to the spamdyke.
 
 What do you think?
 
 
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users


Re: [spamdyke-users] Cache system

2007-10-22 Thread vido
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:08:49PM -0500, Sam Clippinger wrote:
 Using tmpfs instead of a real disk could potentially make the accesses 
 faster (on a busy server, most of the cache would stay buffered in 
 memory anyway) but it wouldn't make the concurrency issues any easier.
 
 Let me step back for a second and ask this: what data would be stored in 
 this cache?  A caching DNS server is a much better solution for caching 
 DNS results because it will correctly interpret the zone expiration 
 times.  If a spamdyke cache doesn't store DNS information, what's left?
 
 Are you suggesting a cache because spamdyke is slow (generally or in a 
 specific situation) or because it might be more efficient?

Personally I don't think the problem is in uncached IPs, because generally
spam waves come from botnets, which means millions of incoming mails coming
each with its own source IP. In such a case, even the most efficient caching
framework cannot help much.

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users