New speed benchmark

[Pete Russell]

What was the content of the 770k of mail? EG 60%+ of spam and viruses? 
Many emails with attachements, nested zip files or anything?

770k completely different emails?

Just curious.
Thanks
Pete

Julian Field wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
>