Tuning MailScanner

Jeff A. Earickson jaearick at COLBY.EDU
Fri May 23 12:49:48 IST 2003

Basically, my exact experience and sentiments...

--- Jeff Earickson

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Gerry Doris wrote:

> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 16:40:59 -0400
> From: Gerry Doris <gerry at dorfam.ca>
> Subject: Tuning MailScanner
> I was reading the thread on running MailScanner with lower numbers of
> children and/or reducing the number of messages/batch to be scanned.
> However, I'm not sure I ever saw a concensus on what is best.
> It sounded like it was dependend on the number of messages being received.
>  If there weren't enough messages coming in to load all the instances of
> MailScanner and only the first couple grabbed all the messages then it was
> a waste running the other instances.
> On the other hand, reducing the number of messages/batch would distribute
> the mail load across all instances of MailScanner and would be more
> efficient.
> If this is correct then the trick is to spread the mail load across as
> many instances of MailScanner as possible as long as you don't run out of
> server resources ie cpu load and memory.
> Sendmail is very efficient.  The real problems are the virus/spam scanning
> especially the RBL checking.
> Is the above correct?
> Gerry

More information about the MailScanner mailing list