Jeff Chan wrote:
> Quoting Peter Farrell :
>
>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> Testing new setup:
>> CentOS 4.4
>> amavisd-new-2.5.1
>> SpamAssassin version 3.2.1
>> running on Perl version 5.8.5
>> +RulesDuJour
>> Quad proc Dell PE w/ 4 GB RAM.
>>
>> Using calls to the timestamp function I've been testing this setup
>> over the past week. While following the debug output I've removed:
>> SARE_SPECIFIC
>> SARE_FRAUD and
>> SARE_HEADER0 from my TRUSTED_RULESETS in RulesDuJour/config
>>
>> And also removed
>> 99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf,
>> 70_sare_header0.cf,
>> 70_sare_specific.cf in /etc/mail/spamassassin -D --lint. It is not
>> compatible with SA3.2.
>>
>> Fair enough. But the processing time during the manual test was still
>> really slow. Depending on the message, the total processing time
>> averaged between 8-15 >>minutes<< per message!
>> *If I then dropped both the blacklist[-uri] out, the timing was a
>> consistent ~45 seconds per message.
>>

>
>
> Please DO NOT use sa-blacklist. Use multi.surbl.org instead. Bill will tell
> you the same thing when he gets a chance.
>
> No one should be using sa-blacklist any more. It's way too large and
> inefficient. The WS bit in multi.surbl.org has the same data and it's in
> DNSBL form so there is no huge ruleset to fill up your memory, just DNS
> queries. In your case it's probably causing spamassassin to swap out of
> memory.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.surbl.org/
>
> Jeff C.
>
>

Make sure you have a caching name server on the machine as well.

Richard