On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Owen Mehegan wrote:
> From: Owen Mehegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:10:15 -0400
> Subject: spamd issues?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-110.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,USER_IN_WHITELIST,
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=ham version=2.60
>
[line wrapped for your protection]
> I've been using spamd on my postfix server for a few months now, and
> only just started subscribing to this list. I've seen a couple of posts
> in the last day or two reporting weird issues with spamd, mainly
> relating to it not pulling all the custom rule sets or plugins on a
> system. I'm certainly not getting a volume of more than 100 emails a
> day, so I could probably run spamassassin alone. I was just under the
> impression that spamd would be more efficient no matter what, and I like
> to run a tight ship. Can anyone else confirm that they also have had
> issues with spamd being less reliable than plain ole' spamassassin?
Well, I can at least confirm that we have not had any problems
with it (aside from -m being ignored on *very* rare occasions). We use
2.63 and spamd/spamc on the primary MX. Total mail volume per day is
probably around 1500 with about 1300 of it being spam (pulling these
numbers out of my butt, since I am not at work at the moment to look at
the latest numbers). We tag spam at 5.0, and reject it at the MTA above
15.0.
About 5 a day slip though on average (mainly german lately), but
bayes learns quickly... I love it. :)
We use slackware 8.1 on a dual P3/750Mhz w/ 1GB RAM. Been using
it for about 8 months now, no problems.
--
Jon Trulson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
