AW: Using Spamd rather than the SpamAssassin Library
ssilva at sgvwater.com
Mon Sep 8 20:00:11 IST 2008
on 9-8-2008 8:27 AM Drew Marshall spake the following:
> On 8 Sep 2008, at 14:13, Matt Hampton wrote:
>> Drew Marshall wrote:
>>> One small question, so I can try to tune things a little more. How
>>> does MS hand the batch over to spamd? Is this one batch per spamd
>>> child? I have started spamd with an optimistic -m 30 and my MS 10
>>> children are romping 20+ SA children, which seems a bit high.
>> It does one per message - as there is the possibility that you are
>> using a different user for each message. I haven't seen this cause a
>> slowdown and even with 20 children, it will still be using less than
>> 10 copies of the rules in MailScanner.
>> Can you see what status they are in (it will be in the maillog)
> Interesting... So there is the potential that with say 10 children, each
> with 20 messages that I am going to need 200 SA children? I fear I will
> have run out of memory by then! Hmm...
I think the spamd children use much less memory then the children started by
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20080908/0ddc13da/signature.bin
More information about the MailScanner