Spamassassin timeouts - Just an observation

[Gareth]

On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 11:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Martin Hepworth wrote on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:26:33 +0000:
> 
> > I'd drop the SARE rules back in, one at a time and see if any trigger
> > the timeouts.
> 
> By dropping them he freed some memory on a memory-scarce machine. That was 
> likely the problem, not processing of certain rules.
> Apart from that I find that there is only a handful of SARE rules that hit 
> nowadays and even these hit only a few messages. I dropped all of them 
> (except for the uribl tld additions) with no ill effects recently.
> Do you still see them hitting a lot? If so, which are the two or three of 
> your most hitting SARE ruleset files? Maybe these were just never part of 
> my list.

I checked our system as we use virtually all of the sare rules.
These are the top 2 usefull rules (some match as much spam as ham so I
have ignored them).

SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU 422 11 2.6 411 97.4
SARE_BOUNDARY_LC 408 2 0.5 406 99.5

So the top rule catches 411 out of 24000 spams (last 3 months) which is
1.7%. Given thats the two best rules its showing that SARE has become
very little benefit for us.

We had a problem with the number of spamassassin timeouts increasing but
it appeared to be a gradual memory leak as the box hadnt been rebooted
for 2 years. After a reboot timeouts went down to 3 the first (partial)
day.