This is a discussion on Re: SA 3.2.4 speedup - SpamAssassin ; Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >>> On 08.04.08 10:52, DAve wrote: >>>> We recently upgraded to SA 3.2.4 and are experiencing much slower >>>> processing. After watching my rule hits for a few days I would like to >>>> remove ...
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> On 08.04.08 10:52, DAve wrote:
>>>> We recently upgraded to SA 3.2.4 and are experiencing much slower
>>>> processing. After watching my rule hits for a few days I would like to
>>>> remove some rules (set score to 0) to gain back some speed.
>>>> Ami I correct in believing that the below rules will not be run and no
>>>> lookup will be made if skip_rbl_checks is set to 1? Looking at my
>>>> dnscache I think this is true.
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> if you want to turn those off, simply disable network rules. Many rules
>>> have different scores when used with network and without it, and simply
>>> disabling network rules would increase FN (maybe even FP) rate for you.
> On 08.04.08 11:34, DAve wrote:
>> But I want some network rules, some of the URIBL tests are my golden
>> bullets, by far the most effective rules we run. Your spam may vary of
> Aha. Well, since network rules are run in parallel, I don't think turning
> off some of them will help you much. And what I say is still valid, even if
> it applies only in some cases
I see your point, problem is the new SA is taking a much larger load,
and catching less spam. I am getting complaints from clients. So now I
am hesitant to remove any rules.
I wanted to check the Wiki to refresh my SA performance knowledge, but
it is down today 8^(
>>> However, if you can afford it, do run those tests. They are much effective
>>> than most of static rules in SA. They don't take much CPU time, just some
>>> network traffic and a few seconds more. And they increase efficiency very
> ... and I still say this
>>>> I would also like to not run the following rules, they hit, but in less
>>>> than 1% of my spam do they make any difference. The lookups are not
>>>> worth it, at least not for our mail, not today. That all may change. I
>>>> am assuming I will need to set each one to zero to stop any lookups?
>>> those were network too.
>> Which was why I asked. I read through the rules to see what was doing a
>> lookup and where it looked up the URI. I do not want to check sorbs or
>> spamhaus, we do that at the MTA. I do not what to lookup anything via
>> spamcop, njabl, or bl.whois.
> I think that should not cause any problems to you. We use blacklist at MTA level too, and SA still hits some of them (of those
> same lists!). SA just may check different IPs.
In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years
of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with
rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel
that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins.