Desperately trying to debug poor spam scanning performance
steve.freegard at fsl.com
Tue Sep 16 17:55:08 IST 2008
Mark Nienberg wrote:
> Ben Tisdall wrote:
>> Steve Freegard wrote:
>>> IMHO - Pyzor isn't usable anymore unless you are low-volume and can put
>>> up with the timeouts decreasing your scanner throughput, so I always
>>> either don't install it or disable it.
>> Interesting to hear your take on this, anyone else share this view?
> Pyzor works well for me with the alternative pyzor server. In your
> .pyzor/servers file you should have
I knew about this server - but I'd still rather not trust my mail
throughput to a single point of failure that everyone is querying.
That's the biggest problem with Pyzor - the back-end has no easy way to
replicate to slaves.
More information about the MailScanner