Robert LeBlanc wrote: > If your users are "confirming" the status of the mail they receive as spam > or ham somehow (e.g. with a quarantine management mechanism of some kind), > then you don't need to use auto-learning at all. A script that runs at > scheduled intervals can run sa-learn on the confirmed spam and confirmed > ham in order to train your Bayes database. Copy that database (read-only) > to all of your nodes, and you're pretty much done.
another idea, not having autolearn enabled on the 2 receiving boxes, and somehow pull out the (quarantined by amavisd) mails that else would have been autolearned by SA (how ..?), then simultaneously train bayes on both nodes with those mails via a cronjob
This is essentially the same idea, except that instead of copying the (trained) Bayes database from the master to the slaves, you'd be copying all the spam and ham and doing the training on each box. There are efficiency tradeoffs in either case, but both methods should work.
> >maybe this point of "common" bayes learning will become > >"unimportant" (i don't remember the right word now) in > >SA 3.x (or was it 2.70) when the Bayes DB can be stored > >in a real SQL database, multiple hosts should the be able to > >write to the same database ? > > Yes, that's one of the ideas behind moving the Bayes database to an SQL > server--it can be more easily shared across an array of content filters, > without having to manage filesystem-level sharing, lockfiles, copying > databases, etc.
will it be possible to do the update writes (multiple SA instances) to one master db, but do the reads from (replicated & local) slave db's ?
In theory it should be possible, yes. Your master SA/amavis box would have to connect to the master database (for reads and writes), while your slave SA/amavis boxes could connect to replicated databases (for reads).
Robert LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Renaissoft, Inc.
Maia Mailguard <http://www.renaissoft.com/maia/>
