You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by David Velásquez Restrepo <da...@conexcol.com> on 2005/05/19 03:25:53 UTC
Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Hi,
I'm user of spamassassin to reviw a lot (a lot!) of incoming mails with
spamassassin lot time ago. Today i have a machine just running spamassassin,
due the high CPU and MEM requirements. Just to be clear (may be i have
something bad).... The question is:
Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and
LOTS of RAM and CPU:
a) TRUE
b) FALSE
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 08:25:53PM -0500, David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
> Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and
> LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
Can't answer this question with the information provided. As a general
answer, though, b, due to the "and".
Usually, 20-30 seconds means you're having network timeout issues, or you have
an overloaded/underpowered machine.
"LOTS" could mean anything, but generally as much memory/cpu as possible is a
good idea.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Hey, you know what'd cheer you up? You should get yourself a puppy." -Amy
"A puppy? Nibbler loved to eat puppies...." -Leela
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by David Brodbeck <gu...@gull.us>.
David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm user of spamassassin to reviw a lot (a lot!) of incoming mails with
> spamassassin lot time ago. Today i have a machine just running
> spamassassin, due the high CPU and MEM requirements. Just to be clear
> (may be i have something bad).... The question is:
>
> Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message
> and LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
False. On my home system, which admittedly doesn't see a lot of mail
volume, it takes between four and six seconds to scan a message. It
sometimes takes longer if some other process is using a lot of memory,
because that machine is kind of short on RAM. It's a 500 MHz DEC
AlphaPC. I'm not doing DNS caching on that one, so a lot of that time
may be waiting for DNS blacklists to respond.
A quick check of the mail server at work, which is faster and uses a
caching DNS server, shows most messages are being scanned in under 2
seconds.
If you're seeing 20 to 30 second scan times, your server is probably
overloaded. Maybe you don't have enough RAM and you're swapping to disk.
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by Martin Hepworth <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>.
David
depends on what you call lots or RAM, CPU etc.
my old scanner took about 5 seconds to scan email with SA (URI_RBL's,
bayes two normal RBL's, lots of extra SARE rules etc), Sophos, ClamAV,
the extra checks MailScanner does and dump the email into a mysql DB for
reports.
Given emails would normally be batched up into a few messages (2-5
average) it difficult to get a single email timing.
That was a 500mhz celeron with 512MB ram and an IDE disk. I would top
out at about 17,000 messages per day of an avergae size of 26kb.
New scanner (P4 2,8ghz, 1.5 GB ram, Sata Disk) takes around 2 seconds
per average batch and tops out at around 70,000 messages per day
(without much O/S tuning).
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm user of spamassassin to reviw a lot (a lot!) of incoming mails with
> spamassassin lot time ago. Today i have a machine just running
> spamassassin, due the high CPU and MEM requirements. Just to be clear
> (may be i have something bad).... The question is:
>
> Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message
> and LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
**********************************************************************
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "David Velásquez Restrepo" <da...@conexcol.com>
> Hi,
>
> I'm user of spamassassin to reviw a lot (a lot!) of incoming mails with
> spamassassin lot time ago. Today i have a machine just running
spamassassin,
> due the high CPU and MEM requirements. Just to be clear (may be i have
> something bad).... The question is:
>
> Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and
> LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
c) IT DEPENDS
How much memory do you have? How fast is the machine? How many spamd
processes are running? How many rule sets are running? Are you using
spamc and spamd or simply spamassassin itself? Is DNS setup properly?
Are you using BLs? yatta and more yatta.
3.02 with a HUGE bundle of SARE rules on a 1 GIB machine running at
2GHz I get these times processing one of my sample spams through the
spamc route:
0.00user 0.00system 0:02.91elapsed 0%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Without the "IT DEPENDS" clause this question is the same as asking
a poor sod if he has stopped beating his wife yet. It presumes a state
not in evidence.
{^_^}
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by Marcel Veldhuizen <ma...@subbot.net>.
At 06:00 19-5-2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Memory usage can be quite huge if you have many custom rulesets,
> because SA
> > 3.0.x forks into several processes which all insist on making their own
> > copy of the ruleset in memory :( When I still used the RDJ bigevil list
> > (amongst others), it would use 96 MB of memory for each SA process.
>
>actually, most of this *is* shared, it's just that linux can no
>longer report this accurately.
What makes you think that? Total used memory on my system is consistent
with SpamAssassin processing not sharing any significant amount of memory.
Also it reports the memory sharing just fine on applications such as Apache?
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "David Velásquez Restrepo" <da...@conexcol.com>
> Software:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> A perl script wich takes some file and test it using Mail::SpamAssassin to
> get it´s spam score level
> OS: gentoo 2005.0
> MTA: postfix
>
> SpamAssassin:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Using: Net test, Bayes, Razor2, DCC, Phyzor, SPF Test (and everything else
> suggested by spamassassin)
> Rules:
> rules_du_jour:
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/antidrug.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/evilnumbers.cf
> http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current
> http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.uri.cf
> http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/random.current.cf
> http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_adult.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_pre25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_bml_pre25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_ratware.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_spoof.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_header.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_html.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_specific.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.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_uri2.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri3.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_eng.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_arc.cf
>
> Runtime:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 4 processes in parallel mode
>
> Harwdare:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Pentium III - 1ghz - 512RAM (pci133)
>
> top:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> top - 23:03:27 up 10:39, 2 users, load average: 5.47, 5.35, 5.19
> Tasks: 62 total, 2 running, 60 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 93.7% us, 5.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.6% hi, 0.0%
si
> Mem: 514036k total, 490044k used, 23992k free, 6892k buffers
> Swap: 987988k total, 49672k used, 938316k free, 38012k cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 27220 xmail 19 0 98680 71m 3064 R 99.9 14.2 2:38.51
> /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 1
> 27603 xmail 15 0 100m 95m 3064 S 36.8 19.0 2:06.76
> /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 5
> 28171 xmail 16 0 93604 87m 3064 D 28.9 17.4 1:11.20
> /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 4
> 27516 xmail 17 0 94644 88m 3064 D 13.1 17.6 2:03.70
> /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 2
> 27308 xmail 18 0 97960 73m 3064 D 10.5 14.5 2:35.46
> /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 3
>
> So, here it goes again the "simple", but not short, 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
>
Given the way you phrase that belligerent assertion I am tempted to
simply answer "true" and leave you floundering. It is obvious that for
the way you have it configured you're going to take 20-30 seconds so
the obvious answer is "true", for you. Now, if you asked, "Am I doing
something wrong?" and approached it from that direction you might
discover you can run tests in about 5 to 7 second each for your
machine. I'll be presumptuous and figure this is what you really mean.
For the run times you cite you may have a BL configuration problem,
such as trying to use a dead BL somewhere. One other thing that can
cause this is a DNS problem.
You are using larger chunks of VIRT than I am. I use about 60M where
you are using 98M. I run with "--max-conn-per-child=15". You win a
little if you either add RAM or cut down to "-m2" or "-m3". You do
have a fair amount of cache in use. Once that happens you flounder
around in cache swapping when running spamassassin.
{^_^}
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>.
David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
> Software:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> A perl script wich takes some file and test it using Mail::SpamAssassin
> to get it´s spam score level
If your script isn't persistent, I'd ditch it and use spamc/spamd as Justin
Mason suggested.
You'll save a lot of processor time from two things using this approach:
1) spamd parses the rulesets when it loads, instead of on a per-message basis.
2) You'll avoid invoking a perl process on a per-message basis, which is a huge
waste of CPU time. The perl processes will be preforked by spamd, and only spamc
(a compiled utility) gets invoked per-message.
3) spamc has a built-in message size limit, so you'll avoid scanning messages
with large attachments that are unlikely to be spam anyway.
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf
Matt Y already pointed this out, but just to underline it, bigevil will waste
TRULY massive amounts of resources on your system.
Even the author of bigevil (Chris S.) strongly recommends that nobody use it,
and if you go to the website now, it's been deleted to prevent anyone from using
it anymore.
You should easily cut 30MB or more off the size of your processes if you remove
bigevil.
In general it looks like you downloaded every optional ruleset in the world and
added it to your configuration before you started off. I would strongly
discourage doing that kind of approach to any kind of server application, and
it's especially true for spamassassin.
Start off running SA without *ANY* add on rulesets, then start adding them a few
at a time. This way if you add a bloated ruleset like bigevil, the cause of the
problem is immediately obvious.
Be very wary of any ruleset which has a .cf file that's greater than 64k in size.
Matt Y's comments on duplicated rulesets (such as antidrug.cf, and having both
the pre and post 2.5x versions of several rulesets) is also valid.
> 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
a) TRUE, due to misconfiguration. With some tuning based on the tips above, this
will readily change to b) FALSE.
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this
question)
Posted by Matt Yackley <sa...@yackley.org>.
Hi David,
A few quick tips to help performance...
David Velásquez Restrepo said:
SNIP
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf
Do not, I repeat do not use this file, it grew way to big. This type of test is
better handled by SURBL.
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/antidrug.cf
If you are running => SA 3.0.0 antidrug is builtin to SA
> http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current
> http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.uri.cf
Might want to drop these as well in favor of SURBL tests, at least the uri version.
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_pre25x.cf
Depending on your SA version run only one of the above rulesets.
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_bml_pre25x.cf
Depending on your SA version run only one of the above rulesets.
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf
Depending on your SA version run only one of the above rulesets.
SNIP
Are you running a caching DNS server? A caching nameserver will help quite a bit
with the net tests.
> So, here it goes again the "simple", but not short, 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
Correct the above items and see how it runs after the changes.
Cheers,
matt
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> Software:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> A perl script wich takes some file and test it using Mail::SpamAssassin to
Which version of SA?
> Using: Net test, Bayes, Razor2, DCC, Phyzor, SPF Test (and everything else
> suggested by spamassassin)
> Rules:
> rules_du_jour:
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf
That's your first problem. We;ve been telling people for months to GET RID
OF THIS THING. Probably causing 80% of your problems.
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/antidrug.cf
If you are on 3.x you shouldn't be running this, it is built in. If you
aren't running 3.x, why not?
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_pre25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_bml_pre25x.cf
I think you aren't reading rule descriptions on our site. Those are two
files, ONE is supposed to be used if you are on 2.4x or before, and the
OTHER if you are on 2.5x or later.
It is physically impossible for a version of SA to be BOTH a version before
and after 2.50.
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf
Same basic problem. Here you are claiming that your version of SA is both
before and after 3.0.0. Up above you claimed it was both before and after
2.50.
Throw out the junk you shouldn't have in those rule sets and things might
work better.
Loren
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this
question)
Posted by Menno van Bennekom <mv...@xs4all.nl>.
> 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.
Menno van Bennekom
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Posted by David Velásquez Restrepo <da...@conexcol.com>.
Software:
--------------------------------------------------------------
A perl script wich takes some file and test it using Mail::SpamAssassin to
get it´s spam score level
OS: gentoo 2005.0
MTA: postfix
SpamAssassin:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Using: Net test, Bayes, Razor2, DCC, Phyzor, SPF Test (and everything else
suggested by spamassassin)
Rules:
rules_du_jour:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/antidrug.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/evilnumbers.cf
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.uri.cf
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/random.current.cf
http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_adult.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_pre25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_bml_pre25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_ratware.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_spoof.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_header.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_html.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_specific.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.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_uri2.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri3.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_eng.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_arc.cf
Runtime:
--------------------------------------------------------------
4 processes in parallel mode
Harwdare:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Pentium III - 1ghz - 512RAM (pci133)
top:
---------------------------------------------------------------
top - 23:03:27 up 10:39, 2 users, load average: 5.47, 5.35, 5.19
Tasks: 62 total, 2 running, 60 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 93.7% us, 5.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.6% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 514036k total, 490044k used, 23992k free, 6892k buffers
Swap: 987988k total, 49672k used, 938316k free, 38012k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
27220 xmail 19 0 98680 71m 3064 R 99.9 14.2 2:38.51
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 1
27603 xmail 15 0 100m 95m 3064 S 36.8 19.0 2:06.76
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 5
28171 xmail 16 0 93604 87m 3064 D 28.9 17.4 1:11.20
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 4
27516 xmail 17 0 94644 88m 3064 D 13.1 17.6 2:03.70
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 2
27308 xmail 18 0 97960 73m 3064 D 10.5 14.5 2:35.46
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 3
So, here it goes again the "simple", but not short, 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
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Marcel Veldhuizen" <ma...@subbot.net>
At 03:25 19-5-2005, David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
>Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and
>LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
False. It depends on your settings and custom rulesets, but scanning a
single message takes about 4-5 seconds on Athlon 800 home box. Of course,
suppose it would be scanning 10 messages in parallel, it would take
'longer' per message.
[JDOW>>] Trust me on this one - it takes an incredibly longer time for
a run on a 66MHz pentium with 256megs of memory. I've seen it take long
enough to timeout sendmail.
{^_-}
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by Marcel Veldhuizen <ma...@subbot.net>.
At 03:25 19-5-2005, David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
>Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and
>LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
False. It depends on your settings and custom rulesets, but scanning a
single message takes about 4-5 seconds on Athlon 800 home box. Of course,
suppose it would be scanning 10 messages in parallel, it would take
'longer' per message.
Memory usage can be quite huge if you have many custom rulesets, because SA
3.0.x forks into several processes which all insist on making their own
copy of the ruleset in memory :( When I still used the RDJ bigevil list
(amongst others), it would use 96 MB of memory for each SA process.
Now that I've trashed bigevil and using URIDNSBL instead, each process uses
about 32 MB of memory for me.
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by Kevin Peuhkurinen <ke...@meridiancu.ca>.
David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm user of spamassassin to reviw a lot (a lot!) of incoming mails
> with spamassassin lot time ago. Today i have a machine just running
> spamassassin, due the high CPU and MEM requirements. Just to be clear
> (may be i have something bad).... The question is:
>
> Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message
> and LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
>
FALSE.
My SA runs on a Pentium IV 3GHz system with 512MB. The average
processing time per email for the last 100,000 or so emails is 2.8
seconds.
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by Paul Shields <pa...@paulshields.com>.
David Velásquez Restrepo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm user of spamassassin to reviw a lot (a lot!) of incoming mails
> with spamassassin lot time ago. Today i have a machine just running
> spamassassin, due the high CPU and MEM requirements. Just to be clear
> (may be i have something bad).... The question is:
>
> Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message
> and LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> a) TRUE
> b) FALSE
False for A - however, lots of ram and cpu is essential for any
reasonably high throughput (this can be applied to many platforms). We
process around 5 million incoming per day through the spamd layer, and
each message takes around 0.5 seconds for spamd to process - this
includes DNS (URI) checks, per-mailbox database lookups, local rulesets
and DCC checks. The key is to have your resources local - if you're
relying on external lookups to the Internet then everything becomes very
variable...
Paul
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> The question is:
No, the questionS ARE:
> Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message
> b) FALSE
> and LOTS of RAM
> a) TRUE
> and LOTS of CPU:
> b) FALSE