Why is MS doing spam checks first?

Drew Marshall drew at THEMARSHALLS.CO.UK
Sat Dec 3 09:18:48 GMT 2005

On 3 Dec 2005, at 04:41, Remco Barendse wrote:

> I tried, but as soon as I increase the number of MailScanner  
> processes I start getting these annoying SpamAss timeouts resulting  
> in spam slipping through (which is really infuriating me because it  
> would have been killed otherwise). Without SA in between the box  
> handles 5 processes easily, it's SA that starts to be difficult.  
> (The box is only handling mail, nothing else).

Do you have a local caching name server running on that box? If not  
you ought to run one. Bind is really quite easy to set up to cache  
only (The instructions are in /etc/named/named.conf or similar). Try  
increasing the child processes one at a time until you reach the best  
you can. My old (Well OK ancient!) 450Mz P3 with 128Mb of ram will  
run 2 processes without swapping (With a maximum batch size of 25)  
and Bind so you box should manage more than it is. Have a look in the  
wiki as there are some good optimisation tips in there that will help.


In line with our policy, this message has 
been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the Wiki (http://wiki.mailscanner.info/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!

More information about the MailScanner mailing list