New speed benchmark
MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Sat Feb 4 11:27:21 GMT 2006
Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 04/02/06, Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, shuttlebox wrote:
>>> Is that with SA or just virus checking? I find that SA with all its
>>> network checks adds a lot more time than the virus scan.
>> With SA it loads to 4 but it gave us too many false alarms so we disabled
>> it, even when we ran it we disabled most checks, the only thing it did
>> was indicate spam content, we use qmail and sendmail to test RBL's etc, no
>> point in accepting the full msg passing it to MS to reject/drop when we
>> can reject on header only at MTA
> That in the greater part explains the difference in load avgs. Not
> that I know exactly what network tests Jules ran in this case, but
> your low figures are simply due to you not doing 1) SA, and 2) SAs BL
> lookups. As mentioned, these two tend to add some "real" load and (in
> the latter case) significant "unreal" load;-).
No RBLs in MailScanner, but with SpamAssassin, DCC and Razor.
1 virus scanner. No rules_du_jour but just the rules that come supplied
with SpamAssassin 3.1.
Basically a default install of MailScanner 4.50, i.e. everything
switched on. The only things I added were SA3.1, DCC and Razor.
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the MailScanner