Nick Phillips nwp at LEMON-COMPUTING.COM
Wed Jun 5 01:25:33 IST 2002

On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 10:50:26AM -0700, Paul Fries wrote:
> 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
> qmail/qmail-scanner/spamassassin.
> 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.

The discrepancy is likely caused by the fact that we have commented out
the "compile_now" in the initialisation of SA in

# JKF 7/1/2002 Commented out due to it causing false positives
#$SAspamtest->compile_now(); # Saves me recompiling all the modules every time

As it was causing problems. You could try uncommenting it and see whether the
bugs in SA that were being tickled by it have gone away...


Nick Phillips -- nwp at
Beware the one behind you.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list