New speed benchmark
pete at enitech.com.au
Sat Feb 4 12:13:55 GMT 2006
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?
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
>>> 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.
More information about the MailScanner