Qmail-LDAP
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Qmail-ldap greylist support

To: qmail-ldap@qmail-ldap.org
Subject: Re: Qmail-ldap greylist support
From: Mark Farver <mfarver@ticom.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:52:53 -0600
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: qmail-ldap-list@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail-ldap@qmail-ldap.org
In-reply-to: <20061222111838.12043.qmail@oak.oeko.net>
Mailing-list: contact qmail-ldap-help@qmail-ldap.org; run by ezmlm
References: <7f05badc0612120332x43839fa1sec510257a21c26f5@mail.gmail.com> <457EBEAA.8080500@ticom.com> <20061222111838.12043.qmail@oak.oeko.net>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I was also thinking along these lines, but wondered if/why I should not
stick with the qmail-smtpd (from qmail-ldap, of course) + qmail-scanner
combo I've been using so far. I have to test it out (or read the code),
but I think that plugging into qmail-scanner would be just as easy,
and should yield much the same result (ie, reject the message during
the SMTP session). I'd rather not miss TLS and all the other goodies,
and don't yet know if qpsmtpd supports all of these.
TLS is supported by qpsmtpd, as is virus scanning and a host of other features. Probably anything you might want is available or trivial to write yourself. The qpsmtpd distribution is small, and not very hard to setup. The toughest part is pulling from CPAN the dependency on Mail::Header. By default the forking server runs on port 2525, and hands off to qmail-queue, so you can install it alongside your installation and experiment. It is hard to explain how well written the plugin interface is, you just have to give it a try. It offers a lot more flexibility than a milter style (pipe thru subprograms) interface. Your plugin can hook any stage of the smtp transaction, so a lot of plugins can reject before data. (Greylisting can reject as early as connect, if you want)


Please look at the message header lines or your protocol. I'm very
interested in the performance figures for your SpamAssassin. On servers
I tend, I see regularly about 15 CPU seconds burned _per_message_,
which I find way to high. OTOH I'm unaware of alternatives that have
comparable filtering abilities.


I don't have an accurate feedback on how much time SA is spending per message, (anyone know an easy way to make SA print this in the logs, or can you point me to where it is located) but 15 seconds of CPU time seems excessively high. Running SA by hand I occasionally see 15 seconds to analyze a message, but most of that time is spent idling for DNS responses from various BL queries.

I would look at a few things: Turn off Bayes filtering. Or at least the auto-learning feature. It works great if you are willing to keep training it, but it gets quickly poisoned if you don't. If you have many users but only one token db (which is the case when you are using SA in a per server filtering roll, instead of say calling it from procmail.) the db quickly gets huge and useless.

The other one, and this is pretty obvious, make sure you are using spamd/spamc, and make sure its working. The processor overhead for loading SA on each message can quickly overwhelm a machine.
Mark Farver


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>