Luis: 2008/10/29 Luis Croker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > How can I tunr off the Network tests (RBLs) ??? Just to probe if it can > make the delivery faster.
Just to check, you know you should run a RBL check in Postfix BEFORE it accepts te message, do you? This reduces dramatically the number of messages your server has to scan. And improves the performance a lot. Personally, I run Zen, from SpamHaus: reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org Try this, so you server doesn't get overloaded with obvious spammy connections form spambots. > > > > > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 04:05 +0000, Ned Slider wrote: > > Gary V wrote: >> >> 6 seconds seems somewhat typical. Mostly due to network tests. Some >> RBLs are no longer and you could turn the non functional RBL rules off >> by setting to 0. I'm not sure which ones though. Maybe someone else >> knows. >> > > From my own stats of hits against DNSBLs and URIBLs for the last ~1000 > spam (these results are typical for me): > > ## DNSBL Statistics ## > 1223 RCVD_IN_ZEN (Spamhaus PBL, SBL or XBL) > 1067 RCVD_IN_UCE_COMBINED (UCEPROTECT level 1, 2 or 3) > 1052 RCVD_IN_PBL > 900 RCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT3 > 834 RCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT2 > 678 RCVD_IN_SBLXBL > 427 RCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT1 > 163 RCVD_IN_PSBL > 105 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET > 15 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB > 14 RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY > 1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL > 1329 Total Spam > > ## URIBL Statistics ## > 1060 URIBL_BLACK > 829 URIBL_JP_SURBL > 695 URIBL_OB_SURBL > 611 URIBL_SC_SURBL > 444 URIBL_SBLXBL > 440 URIBL_WS_SURBL > 427 URIBL_AB_SURBL > 163 URIBL_RHS_DOB > 42 URIBL_PH_SURBL > 1329 Total Spam > > Spamhaus Zen is highly effective for me and hits on >90% of spam when > used as -lastexternal, and is the only DNSRBL I'd trust to use at the > smtp level. I've also added custom rules for UCE Protect levels 1-3 and > PSBL blacklists. I wouldn't use either at the smtp level as they do > generate the occasional FP, but UCE Protect is useful in a scoring > environment such as SA. For me NJABL, SORBS and pretty much anything > else are a waste of space relative to the effectiveness of Spamhaus. If > you can implement Spamhaus Zen at the smtp level then blocking ~90% of > spam before it ever reaches SA is hugely beneficial to system load and > the rest could probably be dropped from SA with minimal impact. > > I also find the URIBLs to be very effective, especially URIBL_BLACK. > Between Bayes and my top DNSRBLs and URIBLs, nothing gets through - > everything else is just bumping the score further past the spam threshold. > > I'd recommend taking a look at your own stats to see which are effective > for you and maybe drop those that are ineffective or, better still, look > at ways to pre-filter spam at the smtp level before it ever reaches > amavisd/SA so as to reduce the load (for example, > http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix_restrictions). A good setup like > this can easily block the vast majority of spam at the smtp level > meaning that your server/SA now primarily only has to deal with the ham > and an insignificantly small proportion of spam. > > BTW, checking my logs I note typical delays of 4-6secs on a 3.0GHz quad > core server with 4GB RAM running 4 amavisd child processes that handles > a very light load. > > -Ned > > > Luis Croker > SCSA - SCNA > Administrador de Sistemas > Megacable Comunicaciones > GPG Key1024D/48C1764B > Key fingerprint = E8B6 E84F ECE4 661E 30C7 7208 042D BD09 48C1 764B Best luck, Luis -- _____________________________________ GNU/GPL: "May The Source Be With You... Linux Registered User #448382. _____________________________________
