I totally agree - SA can be a beast sometimes.
However, there are differences in how you call SA... If you go down
the spamd/spamc route, then you can gain some efficiency over (what
were) the normal methods.
MailScanner is meant to be a good program that will interface with
your MTA and SA & ClamAV...
Khalid
On 1 Oct 2007, at 14:41, Mark Rogers wrote:
Khalid Hanif wrote:
Do you have to use dspam?
I've successfully used SpamAssassin ( http://
spamassassin.apache.org/ ) on very large mail volumes
successfully. This was with exim, however, you can use it with
postfix too as far as I'm aware.
We have also used SA in the past with reasonable success with large
mail volumes, but the server loads we're seeing with dspam are far
lower than with SA for comparable circumstances. dspam regularly
processes about 10k emails/hr on a low spec low memory server,
whilst retaining the ability to let individuals train for their own
purposes etc. (That includes virus checking via ClamAV as well, of-
course).
SA has some nice features but they come at a cost in our
experience. I've seen SA bring a server to its knees on several
occassions.
Thats not to criticise SA, its just from what I read before trying
dspam, and from what I've found since trying it, dspam is better at
its job (but less well supported/documented at the moment).
Mark Rogers
_______________________________________________
Peterboro mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
_______________________________________________
Peterboro mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
