On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote: > >Both on the same box, with some level of spam filtering too - using > >DNSBLs (light load) and Spam Assassin (tagging only).
Bah, I meant Spambouncer. > Whether you use Spam Assassin for "tagging only" or sorting spam into other > folders, the load is the same. It is the tests that determine if it is spam > or not which take most of the CPU time. Yes, and people tend to fail to take it into account. > Umm, not sure what you mean by /bin/sh based - Spam Assassin is most > definately Perl based. See above. > >Perl based filtering agents have the same (or worse) problem. The > >startup load for a dozen parallel perl proceses can quickly kill a > >ramstarved (< 256Mb) machine. > > Which is why Spam Assassin gives you the option of using the spamc/spamd > client server pair. If you can deal with the security risks. There has already been one advisory about it. :-( Messagewall is probably a better overall solution for filtering, it's a SMTP proxy. AB
