Mailscanner mqueuein trouble
chrisgreen at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 21 04:55:16 IST 2006
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Denis Beauchemin wrote:
>>>So in essence, S.A is good for stopping about 0.1% of it.
>>>nice and handy and warns the suer the otehr 99.9% of the time BUT because
>>>its a warning people will at least start to read it to see if its spam
>>I disagree with you. SA, if you tune it right, will detect pretty much
>>ALL spam. But it needs lots of RAM.
>>We warn users above 5 and delete mails above 20 and yesterday we managed
>>to delete 59% of spam...
>Then its not catching the sort of crap we see, as per my previous most of
>it is low scoring so they see it anyway, if I was to run your settings here
>it would be a pure waste of time because you are still sending 99% of it to
>users to evaluate if itsspam or not, but each network to their own i
>But I see in your followup post you only do about 100K a day, we have 3
>machines that do 3/4 of a million+ and 1 that does well over a million a
>day (which is the problem one) each so they are not exactly little
Are you running sa-learn on those boxes? I'm truely surprised at the woeful
performance you're getting. It's almost like you are feeding spam in to
sa-learn as ham...!
More information about the MailScanner