I am trying to figure out how SA is being called. So far, according to the Scott L Henderson instructions, I installed Spamassassin but don't see how it is being called. I tried emailing scott about another question and didn't get a response, so I didn't even try to ask him on this.
I looked in maillog and see postfix and amavisd reporting in but no SA. Will see about adding some more memory. Ron -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Nutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Manager Information Technology Services (502)863-7002 Georgetown College Georgetown, KY 40324-1696 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Ed Kasky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:36 AM To: Ronald I. Nutter Subject: Re: Questions about SA Ron - How are you calling SA? there are 2 options: 1. calling the perl script spamassassin for each email to be scanned 2. using spamc to call spamd - the deamonized version. I wouldn't suggest anything lower than 512 mb ram. I am running a 500 mhz p3 with 512 but it only handles about 5,000 emails a day. I am assuming you're going to have a few more than that... hth, Ed On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Ronald I. Nutter wrote: > I just finished getting SA up and running using the Scott L Henderson > document. It passes the tests in the documents. I don't see Spam > assassin running as a process like postfix and amavisd. Is there a > way to check that it is running ? > > Also, what is suggested for hardware to run it on ? I will be dealing > with 1500 faculty/staff/students. I have it on a 400 mhz pentium with > 32 megs of ram. I know I will need to add more memory before going to > production but wasn't sure about the processor. > > Ron > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ron Nutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Network Manager > Information Technology Services (502)863-7002 > Georgetown College > Georgetown, KY 40324-1696 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] Spam FIREWALL software > > > On Tuesday 24 August 2004 12:05 pm, Raquel Rice wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:00:14 -0400 > > > > Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Admittedly SA is tweakable to reduce FP's considerably, but being > > > a > > > SA user the 1/25,000 FP rate doesn't choke me up at all. If it's > > > true, it's quite impressive. Very few spamfilters can claim a FP > > > rate anywhere near that low. > > > > The concern I have is what happens to false positives? They don't > > get > > > past the firewall, so what if that's something important? > > Ask yourself this: What happens to the "important" message just > deleted by the user in frustration of dealing with 300 spams per day? > Or the "important" message lost by a still too flaky smtp network. > > My take on this is: > Who would send anything "important" by email without a follow-up or > confirmation of some kind? > > If it was important then one should send a follow up or > request a return receipt. > > > -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Randomly generated quote: It is not so much our friends' help that helps us as the confident knowledge that they will help us. -Epicurus, Greek philosopher (341-270 BC)
