On 22-Sep-06, at 11:31 AM, Lars Roland wrote:
On 9/20/06, Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I seriously recommend you check out running under Apache. I suspect
it's the fastest way to run qpsmtpd (barring experimenting with the
poll server). It's how apache.org have been running qpsmtpd for a
long time now.
The main difference between forkserver and prefork is the child reuse
which lovers the fork rate on the system considerably. I quickly
looked at mod_perl but was unable to determine if it actually reuses
its processes.
It does.
Also run with at the very least SBL+XBL and a DUL (you may need to
pay for MAPS DUL as it's professionally run unlike the SORBS DUL).
This will get your load right down by getting rid of 60% of your spam
with just a DNS lookup.
RBL lookups are a powerful way to reduce load but RBL FP's are a real
pain (try blocking a ISP mailserver) - spamcop does very well in this
area but I am wondering what your experiences with SBL+XBL and DUL are
?. FP's may not be much of a problem with 20K emails a day but when
scanning millions, a low FP rate may end up being to high.
We [*] scan a billion emails a week, and I have experience with
significantly higher volumes than that (billions a day). SBL+XBL has
negligable FP rates, plus they fix problems faster than anyone else.
DUL depends on who you use, but they're all reasonable. Ironically
the list you say is good - spamcop - tends to be very FP prone. In
the region of about 1%.
Matt.
[*] MessageLabs - though we neither use qpsmtpd for that, nor is my
experience with SBL+XBL necessarily tied to my "work" there, more my
involvement in anti-spam in general.
