Too messages in Hold folder when spamassassin is activated in MailScanner

[Glenn Steen]

On 30/11/2007, Israel Garcia <igalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 5:21 PM, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 29/11/2007, Israel Garcia <igalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, I have to tell you I'm continuing with the same problem with too
> many
> > > messages in HOLD folder and a terrible delay (sometimes 1 hour) and
> because
> > > the way my company works it's not allowed to keep messages for more than
> 10
> > > min... I have to remember that when I disable spamassassin in
> mailscanner
> > > everything is fine... There's no dough the cause of my problem is the
> high
> > > traffic in my connection to Internet and SA and DNS timeouts. I was
> thinking
> > > in change  SA for another anti-spam ..I read about Dspam (
> > > www.nuclearelephant.com ).. and I want to ask the list if Dspam can be
> > > integrated with mailscanner...Any ideas?
> >
> > There's been talk about it, but IIRC there has never been a full ACK
> > on it being done.
> >
> > There's no chance of upgrading your lines a tad?
> What lines? I dont know what to add to postfix/mailscanner or spamassassin
> config files to see if I cant solve my problem...

Complementing or replacing your WAN link with something more capable.
Slight translation foobar, sorry:-).

> > Or just plain killing
> > off all .... non-essential.... communication (like emule:-)?
> emule have been killed yerterday.. but I have another (NORMAL) high traffic
> that use my bandwidth and sometimes is gets 100% of it...and here is where
> my problem begins with delay on delivering mails...
> Thanks for your answrer..Glenn

As you say, these things (deciding what should be considered
"essential"...:-) is seldom up to us tech types. But the person(s)
doing the decisions should be made fully aware of the very real
performance bottleneck you have, and that the only long term solution
likely is a more or less costly WAN ink upgrade... And that in the
mean time they need decide whether they want
- mail
- mail with a lot of spam/viruses
- ftp
- http
- whatever
to have priority.
Once they've become aware of the severity of your problem (that it
isn't really a problem only related to mail and anti-spam/virus), the
decision to make the WAN link upgrade might be more... alluring:-).

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