You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Jean-Paul Natola <jn...@familycareintl.org> on 2007/07/25 15:14:54 UTC
Scantime on messages
Hi everyone,
I'm looking over my logs and it *seems* to me that its taking exceessivley
long for these messages to scan, granted I don't have the latest and greatest
hardware, but I rarely if ever use swap - so I don't *think* that it should
take so long-
Here's my top stats
28 processes: 1 running, 27 sleeping
CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 1.9% interrupt, 97.7% idle
Mem: 184M Active, 28M Inact, 51M Wired, 60M Buf, 231M Free
Swap: 999M Total, 999M Free
Here are some of my scan times
Jul 25 01:45:56 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (34.6/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 2.4 seconds, 966 bytes.
Jul 25 01:46:24 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (41.5/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 2.4 seconds, 19950 bytes.
Jul 25 01:47:37 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (11.5/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 3.4 seconds, 14712 bytes.
Jul 25 01:47:42 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (37.1/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 4.5 seconds, 3351 bytes.
Jul 25 01:51:09 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: clean message (-2.5/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 2.4 seconds, 3935 bytes.
Jul 25 01:55:37 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: clean message (1.5/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 223.7 seconds, 261727 bytes.
Jul 25 01:57:37 milter spamd[13933]: spamd: clean message (-2.6/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 8.8 seconds, 4265 bytes.
Jul 25 02:00:41 milter spamd[14396]: spamd: clean message (-1.2/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 1.5 seconds, 1386 bytes.
Jul 25 02:01:26 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: clean message (-2.0/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 15.3 seconds, 5558 bytes.
Jul 25 02:01:47 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (8.4/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 1.7 seconds, 12932 bytes.
Jul 25 02:02:32 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: clean message (-2.6/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 3.1 seconds, 5336 bytes.
Jul 25 02:02:50 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: clean message (-2.5/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 4.9 seconds, 3382 bytes.
Jul 25 02:03:33 milter spamd[13933]: spamd: clean message (1.5/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 339.7 seconds, 261727 bytes.
Jul 25 02:04:05 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (33.8/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 2.5 seconds, 2161 bytes.
Jul 25 02:06:22 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (34.9/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 7.9 seconds, 6644 bytes.
Jul 25 02:07:40 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (11.6/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 6.6 seconds, 5049 bytes.
Jul 25 02:11:01 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (23.2/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 12.1 seconds, 8503 bytes.
Jul 25 02:12:08 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (13.8/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 4.9 seconds, 14150 bytes.
Jul 25 02:12:44 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: identified spam (37.1/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 14.6 seconds, 3361 bytes.
Jul 25 02:14:19 milter spamd[13528]: spamd: clean message (4.0/5.0) for
nobody:58 in 2.3 seconds, 5297 bytes.
Jean-Paul
Re: Scantime on messages
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
> >On 26.07.07 14:11, Stefan Klewer wrote:
> >>Rsync all RBLs, which are listed in the spamassassin config and integrate
> >>them into a local rbldnsd. it really helps fasten up scanning
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 at 15:21 +0200, uhlar@fantomas.sk confabulated:
> >I'm afraid that rsyncing of spamhaus and spamcop is not applicable for
> >anyone ;)
On 26.07.07 13:39, Duane Hill wrote:
> I don't know if it is not applicable for anyone. Both offer rsync services
> for fees:
Yes, I meant exactly those fees 'not applicable for anyone' :-)
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
- Holmes, what kind of school did you study to be a detective?
- Elementary, Watson.
Re: Scantime on messages
Posted by Duane Hill <d....@yournetplus.com>.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 at 15:21 +0200, uhlar@fantomas.sk confabulated:
>> Per Jessen schrieb:
>>> It could be caused by DNS lookups taking longer. That would be my guess
>>> for anything taking more than 5 seconds.
>
> On 26.07.07 14:11, Stefan Klewer wrote:
>> Rsync all RBLs, which are listed in the spamassassin config and integrate
>> them into a local rbldnsd. it really helps fasten up scanning
>
> I'm afraid that rsyncing of spamhaus and spamcop is not applicable for
> anyone ;)
I don't know if it is not applicable for anyone. Both offer rsync services
for fees:
http://www.spamhaus.org/datafeed/index.html
http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/340.html
-------
_|_
(_| |
Re: Scantime on messages
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
> Per Jessen schrieb:
> > It could be caused by DNS lookups taking longer. That would be my guess
> > for anything taking more than 5 seconds.
On 26.07.07 14:11, Stefan Klewer wrote:
> Rsync all RBLs, which are listed in the spamassassin config and integrate
> them into a local rbldnsd. it really helps fasten up scanning
I'm afraid that rsyncing of spamhaus and spamcop is not applicable for
anyone ;)
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
RE: Scantime on messages
Posted by Stefan Klewer <ur...@gmx.de>.
Rsync all RBLs, which are listed in the spamassassin config and integrate
them into a local rbldnsd. it really helps fasten up scanning
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jan Doberstein [mailto:jd@hosteurope.de]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007 20:54
An: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Scantime on messages
Per Jessen schrieb:
> It could be caused by DNS lookups taking longer. That would be my guess
> for anything taking more than 5 seconds.
Re: Scantime on messages
Posted by Jan Doberstein <jd...@hosteurope.de>.
Per Jessen schrieb:
> It could be caused by DNS lookups taking longer. That would be my guess
> for anything taking more than 5 seconds.
try to use a local dns cache ... helps here to fasten up mail scanning!
\jd
Re: Scantime on messages
Posted by Per Jessen <pe...@computer.org>.
Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking over my logs and it *seems* to me that its taking
> exceessivley long for these messages to scan, granted I don't have the
> latest and greatest hardware, but I rarely if ever use swap - so I
> don't *think* that it should take so long-
>
It could be caused by DNS lookups taking longer. That would be my guess
for anything taking more than 5 seconds.
/Per Jessen, Zürich