On 9 Dec 2007, at 21:40, Steven Stern wrote:
Have you tried running a local caching name server? That can cut
down on times to do repetitive name lookups.
Yes indeed, it's something we've always had on mail servers even
before we had SpamAssassin, for exactly that reason.
Thanks,
mrj
--
On 9 Dec 2007, at 21:40, Steven Stern wrote:
Have you tried running a local caching name server? That can cut
down on times to do repetitive name lookups.
On 09.12.07 21:58, Mark Rigby-Jones wrote:
Yes indeed, it's something we've always had on mail servers even
before we had
You use Bayes?
Have you tried turning off auto_expire? From my expierence this can cause
significant performance issues.
Moreover, have you tried turning off bayes? without bayes scanning too a
quarter of a second per email on a 2cpu, 8GB standard i686 arch, sa
compiled as 32-bit app.
Philipp
SIP Phone: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Philipp Snizek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Rigby-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:49:26 PM (GMT) Europe/London
Subject: Re: spamd throughput issues
You use Bayes?
Have you
Philipp Snizek wrote:
You use Bayes?
Have you tried turning off auto_expire? From my expierence this can cause
significant performance issues.
It shouldn't cause performance issues. It should only cause, at worst,
one message every 12 hours or so to take a long time (ie: 10 minutes).
Philipp Snizek wrote:
You use Bayes?
Have you tried turning off auto_expire? From my expierence this can
cause
significant performance issues.
It shouldn't cause performance issues. It should only cause, at worst,
one message every 12 hours or so to take a long time (ie: 10 minutes).
Mark Rigby-Jones wrote:
On 9 Dec 2007, at 21:40, Steven Stern wrote:
Have you tried running a local caching name server? That can cut down
on times to do repetitive name lookups.
Yes indeed, it's something we've always had on mail servers even before
we had SpamAssassin, for exactly that
Hello everyone,
We've been using SpamAssassin on our front-end to provide anti-spam
services to our customers for some years now, but are trying to set
up some dedicated scanning boxes to take the load off the main SMTP
servers. Unfortunately, I'm struggling to get spamd to handle
Hi,
are you using network tests?
Try to evaluate spamd performance when run with the -L flag.
--
Pawel Sasin
WIRTUALNA POLSKA SA, ul. Traugutta 115c, 80-226 Gdansk; NIP: 957-07-51-216;
Sad Rejonowy Gdansk-Polnoc KRS 068548, kapital zakladowy 62.880.024 zlotych
(w calosci wplacony)
On 9 Dec 2007, at 21:03, Paweł Sasin wrote:
are you using network tests?
Try to evaluate spamd performance when run with the -L flag.
We are running network tests. Disabling them helps somewhat, in that
the emails which were already scanning relatively quickly do so even
faster. However,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/09/2007 03:27 PM, Mark Rigby-Jones wrote:
On 9 Dec 2007, at 21:03, Paweł Sasin wrote:
are you using network tests?
Try to evaluate spamd performance when run with the -L flag.
We are running network tests. Disabling them helps somewhat,
11 matches
Mail list logo
