Hi Mark,
On Fri, 22.12.2006 at 21:52:53 -0600, Mark Farver <mfarver@ticom.com> wrote:
> 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.
I've already started to look into it, and yes, TLS support was even
advertised on the front page (I only didn't look at it before posting -
my bad!).
> 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
Example (slightly obfuscated):
Received: from djbt@ozomatic.com by hostname by uid 201 with qmail-scanner-x.xx
(spamassassin: x.xx. Clear:RC:0(67.77.86.232):SA:0(2.4/5.0):. Processed in
2.478731 secs); 23 Dec 2006 05:26:40 -0000
This is not from the host I talked about earlier, but it says:
"Processed in 2.478731 secs" which I (mis-?) interpreted as being
roughly 2.5 CPU seconds.
> I would look at a few things: Turn off Bayes filtering. Or at least
> the auto-learning feature.
Bayes is already off, mainly because of the poisoning problem and the
inherently nondeterministic results.
> It works great if you are willing to keep training it, but it gets
> quickly poisoned if you don't.
That would have to be done by the users. I fear that all Bayesian
filters have this problem, and I already know that I can't get the
users to train such a filter, nor hand me mail bodies that I could do
it for them with.
> 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.
No, you can have per-user settings also in a per-server role. Look for
'-x -q' or some such. The "user" address will be determined by the
email recipient of the email. You can also look at
"--virtual-config-dir". This way I can use SA as a server and don't
need .procmail or so to have per-user settings (these mail servers are
only gateways anyway - mail gets filtered etc, but then forwared to the
"real" servers).
> 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.
I'm also already doing that (who runs "spamassassin", anyway?). Btw,
the 15 seconds figure applies to a P4-2.4 GHz with sufficient disk and
memory, btw...
Thank you for your ideas, I'll probably make an experiment with
qpsmtpd as my next step.
Best,
--Toni++
|