Bill, There is a lot of things that can be done to lower the processor utilization. I would hate to speculate on what you can do since I am not familar with how you have your invURIBL configured. For example on my system I process 150K+ messages a day and looking at the timing information from uriTimeAnalyze the average process time is 500ms per message and cpu usage is very low. I would suggest you contact me off list and we can review your configuration and goals and get it tweaked for your system. Just shoot me an email at support [at] invariantsystems . com and we can start looking at this today. Darrell Bill Green dfn Systems writes:
We are using IMail 8.12 / Declude 1.8 / Sniffer & invURIBL. This combination has virtually eliminated Spam with very little False Positives. I am searching for ways to reduce the Processor penalty for invURIBL. Many of the latest updates have helped a little, but I have an idea that, if possible, will drastically reduce my cpu utilization. Any mail that fails Sniffer (which is most of our Spam) is penalized enough that I don't need invURIBL to run. According to my understanding, using custom tests I can set a test to apply invURIBL only if the email passes sniffer, but invURIBL is still actually run against every email since it is in global.cfg, so there is no reduction in Processor utilization. (Actually, an increase due to the custom test).
Do I understand this correctly?
Is there a way to only run the invuribl.exe if a message has passed Sniffer?
Bill Green
dfn Systems
505-622-7853
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail".  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail".  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

Reply via email to