On Friday 29 April 2005 13:41, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
What performance hit? As long as you use spamd/spamc instead of
calling spamassassin directly, you don't have the perl startup
overhead each time. Spamd runs continuously and scans the files
given to it by spamc.
I would recommend SpamAssassin. It is fast, accurate, customizable,
and constantly being updated to catch the latest spams.
Spmasassassin has a fairly large performance impact. I know it has
gotten one of my servers on it's knees. Now given modern hardware and
not to much email, it's entirely workable and works like a charm. If
either of those premisses is not met, better be prepared to do some
tuning. Basically things went better by setting maxdels to 1 in
local, because spamd seems to be more efficient if everything is
batched as opposed to working in parallel.
Anything that does something is going to have a performance impact. (You
can quote me on that... :-)
The *rules* you use to run spamassassin can have as much of an affect as
actual deliveries. I once had BigEvil in place from
http://www.rulesemporium.com/ but it bumped memory use so much the
server started swapping, so I took it out. YMMV.
jerry
4 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] Spam filtering
