<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [TLUG]: Speeding up Spam Assassin</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I used to use spamassassin on my debian machine. I remembered I used SpamAssassin daemon, not spamc/spamd. It only took couple of seconds processing the message. Try daemon intead. I now switched to DSPAM.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Michael Coburn [<A HREF="mailto:michael-3aH0qR8MVRD3fQ9qLvQP4Q@public.gmane.org">mailto:michael-3aH0qR8MVRD3fQ9qLvQP4Q@public.gmane.org</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: August 4, 2004 5:04 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Toronto Linux Users Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: [TLUG]: Speeding up Spam Assassin</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On my Debian stable / qmail P2 333 with 128M of ram and approximately 50 messages per hour, the average message requires 3 - 5 seconds to process through spamc, and sometimes as long as 70 seconds.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Is it possible that your system is underpowered, or you have a busy MTA with multiple messages being processed by spamc concurrently?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>michael</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:41, jim ruxton wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Hi,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Hi Jim. Spamc/spamd uses the same ruleset as the spamassassin perl </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > script by default. I think this is unnecessary duplication.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Strange thing is spamassassin does catch the odd spam that spamc </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> misses. I'm not sure why this is. Is it typical for spamc to take so </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> long to analyze a message. Sometimes it even takes up to 30 seconds. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> jim</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Of course</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > spamc/spamd could be configured differently to spamassassin but that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > really would be unnecessary complexity in most cases.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > anything spamc misses. It takes about 10-15 seconds per message </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > sometimes for spamc to determine whether a message is spam. Any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > suggestions how I can speed this up?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Ordinarily I'd recommend spamc/spamd over spamassassin as they are </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > so much faster but you are already using using spamc/spamd.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > So I'd say drop spamassaassin as a follow-up to spamc/spamd.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Cheers,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Rob</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: <A HREF="http://tlug.ss.org" TARGET="_blank">http://tlug.ss.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to UNSUBSCRIBE: <A HREF="http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml" TARGET="_blank">http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: <A HREF="http://tlug.ss.org" TARGET="_blank">http://tlug.ss.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: <A HREF="http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml" TARGET="_blank">http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml</A></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>!DSPAM:41114ec735251644312185!</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>