"not cached, timed out" in spam that scored 0.

[Glenn Steen]

Hi Angelo,

Look below....

On 12/02/07, am.lists <am.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott:
>
> I felt the same way -- only seeing 3 timeouts, its probably ok to bump
> up the timeout, but wasn't sure where the setting was. If I had seen a
> bunch of timeouts, I'd be investigating what was causing the
> individual timeouts.
>
> I found the setting in /etc/MailScanner/mailscanner.conf...
>
> It was 75, I bumped it to 90.

Some on this list feel that those settings would *always* be too
low:-)... And would tell you to bump it up to 600 (or so) seconds...
If it is the "bayes expire"-problem, 75 or 90 will not make much
difference;-)... but 600 would:-D.
The reasoning here is along the lines that SA should *never* timeout
(and be killed).

> FWIW, I did the lint test of SA through MailWatch GUI to see if there
> were any apparent issues, the elapsed time on that comes in at
> 5.97865sec.  Having nothing to compare that to, is that good, bad,
> horrible, etc?
>
Well, if you are using SA 3.1.7, then the MailWatch lint doesn't
include the network tests anymore (earlier versions of SA did), so
that doesn't really say much, unfortunately.
Time a "spamassassin -D -t < /path/to/test/message" instead, and
you'll likely see some longer times... (If you're using 3.1.7, that
is:-).

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se