Joe,
Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote:
JWC #2 Is the Declude replacement to the Ipswitch mail handler that
JWC much more inefficient, or does JunkMail just take alot more
JWC processing?
Declude doesn't replace the mail handler. It is handed the message by
IMAIL, processes it, and depending
: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
Joe,
I can't comment for anyone else, but I'd like to give my $.02 on
question 1. We've recently purchased MessageSniffer, and its results
have been outstanding. We use a weight of 20 as our breaking point on
when a message can no longer
PROTECTED]
| [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-owner;declude.com] On Behalf Of
| David Lewis-Waller
| Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:15 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
|
|
| Has anyone found MessageSniffer to add any significant CPU
| load
David,
Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote:
DLW Has anyone found MessageSniffer to add any significant CPU load
DLW before/after implementation?
No noticeable load.
If you are are already using it you can get this information in the
sniffer logs - see
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
#2My mail server does quite a bit of list serving. I've noticed that
since I installed JunkMail my
Last month our single Imail server running Declude AV and JM did 3,427,511
mails...roughly 76.8 emails a minute (about 13,000 a/cs). Our CPU load is
small. However when you run JM you will be doing a heck of a lot of DNS
queries. Scott could the delay on a slow link for all these queries pull
