Paul Fries paul at CWIE.NET
Tue Jun 4 18:50:26 IST 2002

Yes. Spamd/spamc provides a huge speed improvement.

I maintain 4 very busy mail servers. 2 of them use
sendmail/mailscanner/spamassassin and the other 2 use

The systems that use qmail-scanner use the daemonized (spamd/spamc)
version of spamassassin, and they routinely process a message in about
.4 to .8 seconds. On my mailscanner systems, this usually goes way above
that. If I tail my maillog, I regularly see the "Spamassassin timed
out..." message (my timeout is 10 seconds!) I have even installed a DNS
caching server on the sendmail boxes to see if DNS was where the
bottleneck was (even though I am not doing any RBL checks with
spamassassin OR mailscanner). No dice. Spamassassin still takes waaay to
long to process through the perl API. Once I tell mailscanner not to
check for spam the mail moves along just fine. My >250000 messages in was processed fairly quickly at that point.

I really think that calling the spamc binary from mailscanner instead of
the perl API will provide a huge speed improvement. I would be happy to
beta-test any new code if someone has written something for this. :)

Paul Fries
paul at

-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On
Behalf Of Francois Caen
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: spamc/spamd

-----Original Message-----
From: paul at CWIE.NET

> Has anyone patched mailscanner to use spamassassin through the
> spamd/spamc pair instead of the perl API?

What would be the benefit of that?
Aren't those 2 programs based on the same SpamAssassin Perl API anyway?
Is there some sort of gain from compiling or something similar?

Francois Caen
Network Information Systems Engineer - Webmaster
City of Lakewood, WA
(253) 512-2269

More information about the MailScanner mailing list