MCP Efficiency?

Glenn Steen glenn.steen at
Fri Aug 18 09:53:48 IST 2006

On 18/08/06, Julian Field <MailScanner at> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Sorry, just checked the code. I am doing that already.
> The cause of the problem is that SpamAssassin does not appear to support
> the way I am trying to use it. I want 2 completely separate instances of
> SpamAssassin. One has all the normal SA rules as expected. The other one
> has no rules or dns checks or Razor or anything at all, it *only* has
> the few rules specified for MCP checking.
> I can't make it do this, while still keeping all the rules compiled in
> both instances and every setup done and cached. The only thing I can
> make it do to run the way I want, is to tell it not to pre-compile all
> the rules. As a result it has to do a huge load of SA compilation for
> every message.
> If Matt Kettler is around, maybe he could offer me some advice. I have
> tried asking on the SA list several times, and they don't understand why
> I would want my 2nd instance at all, so I never got any helpful answers.
This is exactly what I suspected from the few trials I did recently
(was thinking of starting to use MCP). And that is where I got the
idea to set dns as unavailable. Helps some, but not all.

The problems lie solidly in the built-in defaults that you cannot override.
What I think you have to do is to maintain a "cleaned" SA environment,
and see to it that MCP uses it by way of a chroot thingie. Really

-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se

More information about the MailScanner mailing list