On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:36:31AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > Oh, and the really big consumer of CPU cycles is SpamAssassin. But > it does such a good job that I'm not sure we'll find a reasonable > alternative. I'm still somewhat floored by the number of dictionary > attacks.
I used to use spamassassin a long time ago, but as you say, its resource drain is huge. I switched to bogofilter about 1 year ago, and I have never looked back. It is written in C and is quite fast, and it also is extremely good at catching spam once you train it (training it is very easy, I just have a mbox file with good emails, and an mbox file full of spam, and I tell it which is which and then it is good to go). If you want to reduce your spam filter computer loading, I'd highly recommend switching to bogofilter. > ... Just looked at the server settings, since we also installed > Webmin, which makes it so much easier. We were only allowing Postfix > 10 child processes, which I'm sure was waaaay too low. It's at 50 and > I suspect it's still too low, but we'll try this for a while. I imagine that up'ping the process max to 50 will help overall mail performance, but would too few processes result in the weird "boom and bust" we've been seeing? I would think that too few postfix processes would be more likely to result in relatively long but uniform delay in mail delivery, not "burstiness". > Glad you asked! Glad you answered! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
