outgoing message processing?

[Ugo Bellavance]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dan Swartzendruber [mailto:dswartz at DRUBER.COM]
> Envoyé : Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:42 PM
> À : MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Objet : Re: outgoing message processing?
> 
> 
> At 10:38 PM 10/19/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Well, my machine gets a 15 seconds delay, even for an address that is
> >whitelisted.  However, I can tell you spamassassin doesn't kick in,
> >because if I send myself the Spam test (see anthony stone's 
> post on oct
> >17th) from my home account (whitelisted), it doesn't get tagged as
> >spam.  However, if I send it from my hotmail account (not 
> whitelisted), it
> >gets a 1000+ score.
> 
> good point.  then again, since my main concern was the delay, i don't
> really care if SA is running or not, just trying
> to expedite the outbound mail processing...

Sorry, I can't help you more than that...  I think that these numbers might be misleading... Look what I've got in my headers(my servers were time-sync'ed just before this test, and they were idle before each message was received):

This is from the whitelisted address delay = 21 sec:
Received: from mta1.camo-route.com ([192.168.100.3]) by mail.camo-route.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
         Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:53:07 -0400
Received: from VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36])
        by mail.camo-route.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A677DF9B9
        for <ugob at camo-route.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:52:46 -0400 (EDT)

For the non-whitelisted address delay=38 sec:
Received: from mta1.camo-route.com ([192.168.100.3]) by mail.camo-route.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
         Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:54:31 -0400
Received: from hotmail.com (bay2-f98.bay2.hotmail.com [65.54.247.98])
        by mail.camo-route.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF75AF9B9
        for <ugob at camo-route.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:53:53 -0400 (EDT)

On my machine, there is a difference of 17 seconds between whitelisted and not.

>From what I see, the whitelisted took 9 seconds to be spam-tested, while the other, 23.

hth.

Ugo