On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Colin Watson wrote: > > May I know what's the nature or severity of the latency problem razor > > has that made it to be rejected for use in bugs.debian.org? > > > > Is it that it adds more latency to the one from the DNS checks or is > > it that it has too much latency by itself? > > When we enabled network checks in spamassassin, the result was that mail > was being processed more slowly than it was arriving. Therefore, we > turned off network checks. > > The machine is not overloaded; much of the problem is that we currently > run spamassassin serially (which in turn was faster than just having > procmail fork-bomb the machine with spamassassin processes as floods of > mail arrived ...). A patch to scripts/spamscan (in debbugs CVS) to allow > it to process multiple messages in parallel would be welcome.
Thanks a lot, this is more or less what I needed to understand the problem better. Related to the latency problem: Some DNSBLs are available via rsync. Perhaps it would be possible to run a local copy with rbldnsd. > > In the former case: Michael Tokarev told me about a tool he is writing > > which is something like the rblcheck program, but does DNS queries in > > parallel. Could a tool like that help to make possible to re-introduce > > razor in the spamassassin chain? > > That sounds like it would help. Has he looked at adns, which should > solve much of the problem for him? Yes, this is the page in which he talks about his tool: http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/udns.html He describes the pros and cons of adns and c-ares, which are similar libraries. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
