New speed benchmark

[Julian Field]

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.

-- 
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
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.