SPF

[Res]

<x-flowed>
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Jan-Peter Koopmann wrote:

>> the SPF option, SA is just too damned slow on these servers, that cop
>> a thrashing.
>
> What is your throughput? I know SA is a performance drag but usually
> people (even big ISPs) can live with its performance. Moreover SA3 is
> supposed to be a lot faster.

Pretty constantly 180 concurrent

> Do the SPF checks at MTA level. If you don't, how do you MailScanner (or
> anything else) expect to treat SPF? SpamAssassin assigns scores to it if
> you choose but since you are not using SpamAssassin you are probably
> faced with either blocking SPF-failures at MTA level or not achieving
> anything at all. Are you not?


Doing it with a milter will be fine if Julian says he has no plans,
our MTA handles it all MailScanner only handles the virus scanning
it works pretty well now, just enforcing rfc1912 reduced spam by 80%
the rbl's get about 15% our sendmail mc options catch 4.9%
on avgs, so theres no way in hell im going to drag the servers down by
useing SA, it just aint gunna happen, simple as that.
tried it once, the load went through the roof.
>

--
Regards,
Res

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html
</x-flowed>