From: "Jon Dossey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Menno van Bennekom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: David Velásquez Restrepo > Subject: Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this > question) > > > Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30 > > seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU: > > a) TRUE > > b) FALSE > My answer is b), False. > I have a mailserver here that has a 1Ghz CPU and 512MB RAM and SA on that > server usually takes 2 or 3 seconds per message. > Like already posted, some of your rulesets are unnecessary because they > are included in SA (standard rulesets or SURBL). > Did you check 'cat messages | spamassassin -D' to see what part takes most > time? DNS time-outs can take a lot of time for example (also checkable > with tcpdump port 53). > Also your SMTP-server (xmail?) takes a lot of cpu. I've never used Xmail > but I use postfix (and amavisd-new) and I think it's quite memory and CPU > efficient. >
Please don't take this as me doubting you - but how in the world are you able to scan a message in 2-3 seconds? I assume you're running some of the network tests, like other people that have posted 2-3 second message processing times, is that correct? My Dl360 with dual 1.266ghz CPU's, 2GB of RAM, and dual 18GB mirrored scsi drives can only scan a message in 4-5 seconds. At least that was my scan time with a completely default setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA 3.0.1, RedHat FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since I updated SA, the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of my processing time was spent waiting for DNS responses. Any input into my situation would be appreciated. I'd love to be able to get down to 2-3 seconds, basically cutting my processing time in half! [JDOW>>] Jon, I am using these rules from the sources that follow the names. (I built my own GetRules script.) 99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 99_OBFU_drugs.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/Testing/ 99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 99_FVGT_DomainDigits.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/Testing/ 99_FVGT_meta.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 88_FVGT_body.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 88_FVGT_rawbody.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 88_FVGT_subject.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 88_FVGT_headers.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 72_sare_bml_post25x.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_highrisk.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_adult.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_oem.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_random.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_spoof.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_header.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_header_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_html.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_html_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_genlsubj_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_genlsubj0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_genlsubj1.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_genlsubj2.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_specific.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_unsub.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_uri0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_uri1.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_uri_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_obfu0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ 70_sare_obfu1.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ chickenpox.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ ratware.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ useless.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ weeds_2.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ Spamc/Spamd takes 2 seconds to scan a small spam message and spit it out. $ spamc <scott .... 0.00user 0.00system 0:01.97elapsed 0%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+190minor)pagefaults 0swaps I am using the default BL tests for 3.02. (Am I insane running all those tests? Probably. Does it work? Excellently. Now, again, am I crazy running all those tests? Naw - if it works do not fix it.) {^_-} <- Proof that much of the time old age and guile really can defeat youth and enthusiasm.
