This is a discussion on Re: SA 3.2.4 speedup - SpamAssassin ; > >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 > ...
> >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^(
If you need to run more spamds in parrallel because of network tests
delays, increase the amount of RAM you have and the number of spamd
> >>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.
We blacklist some stuff at the MTA too, but figure it's probably cached
in our nameserver if it has to check it again, so no big penalty. We
have our own rsync feed to some of those services, so it would
definitely be a local network check.
Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.com/