Could your MTA be the bottleneck?
On 1/12/04 5:14 PM, Dimitry Peisakhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Guys,
I wrote to the list a few weeks ago asking for advice on spamd
performance. I got some, and have implemented it, but dont know if i'm
seeing a performance improvement. The
Hiya,
I am just building up a new POP server for our users to replace our ageing
old mail server.
I already have a separate machine doing Spam Assassin, which is run on a
system wide basis and I just redirect certain domain names that want
filtering via it.
On this new server, I am running
I agree, autolearn in conjunction with the odd manual insert works very well
here, although I'm still having troubles blocking the variation of those
ridicoulous drugs/rx msgs.
0.000 01781758 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 319835 0 non-token data:
Anyone? :(
On 10/11/04 8:56 AM, Gavin Cato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hiya,
Got a bit of a problem.
Have this setup ;
Internet -- avmx01 server (Postfix + ClamAV + Amavisd) -- SA server
(Sendmail + SA 3.0.1) -- Remote MTA
The avmx01 server was upgraded to a much more powerful
PM, Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
there's been a few reports of this, but we're really mystified.
A test case would help, but it doesn't seem easily reproducable
for anyone :(
- --j.
Gavin Cato writes:
Anyone? :(
On 10/11/04
Per the documentation, this should get me 3 processes. I run an average of 10 to 12 spamd processes at any one time, but it seems stable at this level. They do recycle, and I've had no problems since setting these restrictions. system has been up a week or more, with no problems.
jay
Gavin Cato
Hiya,
Got a bit of a problem.
Have this setup ;
Internet -- avmx01 server (Postfix + ClamAV + Amavisd) -- SA server
(Sendmail + SA 3.0.1) -- Remote MTA
The avmx01 server was upgraded to a much more powerful machine 2 days ago. I
don't think that should be causing this problem though.
The SA
, Gavin Cato wrote:
Is there a way to edit this apart from editing the source code?
Yeah, it's configurable. Check out perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf,
look for report and clear_report_template. :)
Is there a way to edit this apart from editing the source code?
Spam detection software, running on the system assassin.nexon.com.au, has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future
Hiya,
I'm just trying this out on a test server.
Is it possible to have amavisd only spamcheck the domains listed in
@local_domains_acl?
I've found that even for domains not listed in that array, that it still
goes and runs the whole spamc checking process, even though it won't add the
spam
There should never be more than (--max-children) + 1 spamd processes
running; if anyone can catch a server doing otherwise, and figure out
*why*, we'd much appreciate it ;)
This was a bit of a coincidence. Read this email this morning, and then
30mins ago my SA server slowed to a absolute
Hi,
I noticed the other day that the latest version of spamass-milter (I don't
know how long the feature has been there) has a cmd line option to block
mail that exceeds a certain score so this might help you if you are running
sendmail.
What I'd really like to do is to be able to define a
Anyone seen this? It seems bent on choosing 4pm.
The date on the box is correct. Hope I'm not missing something incredibly
obvious :)
assassin# zcat /var/log/maillog.0.gz | ./sa-stats.pl -T 15 -l - -s
'2004-10-31 00:00:00' -e '2004-10-31 23:
59:58'
Report Title : SpamAssassin - Spam
Hi Robert,
Why couldn't you simply install another perfectly running copy of SA
on server A, and let the users on that machine call spamc directly on
that machine?
I'd prefer the one copy so I can maintain the one ruleset, Bayesian
database, AWL etc.
Cheers
Gav
89 a minute! Wow! What else do you run on that machine? (Do you run your
other email server software there or is it a dedicated SA box? Do you also
run a virus scanner for example?)
Hiya,
It runs FreeBSD 4.8 (with SMP kernel of course) and sendmail + SA 3.0.1 -
that's it, nothing else
I noticed a significant improvement with 3.0 - especially with drugs related
messages.
On 29/10/04 8:21 AM, Jeff Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63? I'm running
2.63 and my friend who owns an ISP just upgraded to ver 3, and he
claims
16 matches
Mail list logo
