2 fold question

[Jerry Benton]

- A spamd failure failure results in email not being scanned for spam as I just fixed this on a client’s servers. Nothing was getting marked as spam and it turns out that spamd was not even running on his system. Email was still being processed and delivered by MailScanner. OF course, I have also seen systems continue to retry over and over again when the socket isn’t available. 

- spamd is faster because it doesn’t have to spin up every time. There is a big difference on a server processing 300k emails a day.

- I have never seen memory leaks with spamd. It is a rather solid product. 

- If your server is using all of its memory, it is supposed to. That is what linux does. It is normal behavior. 


-
Jerry Benton
www.mailborder.com



On Jun 19, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Rick Cooper <rcooper at dwford.com> wrote:

> Mailscanner is fine with spamd restarting same as when clamd reloads, when
> spamd restarts (IIRC) it's children finish processing before dying. I used
> spamd with MailScanner for several years now and have had not issues, same
> score and as far as performance (speed) it's pretty much six of one and half
> dozen of the other. I origianlly setup timers on both and ran both on each
> email and one might be a very bit faster on a given email and then flip so
> pretty much even, would say over all no difference, resource wise very big
> difference. Now I don't have 200,000 emails a day but I would bet that spamd
> would out perform the MailScanner implemenation on a very busy server 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Randal,
> Phil
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:32 AM
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: RE: 2 fold question
> 
> A spamd failure could let a lot of spam through (or a backlog of unprocessed
> email, depending on how it was implemented).
> 
> Memory leaks in spamd could also prove problematic, unless it had scheduled
> restarts, assuming that MailScanner could cope with that.
> 
> Nonetheless, it would be interesting to compare the performance of a spamd
> version with the current implementation.
> 
> Slower, I suspect, but less of a memory hog.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Remco
> Barendse
> Sent: 19 June 2014 15:52
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: RE: 2 fold question
> 
> What a pity, before i wouldn't care about how much memory any given app
> would use, now that i have virtualized everything, it starts to matter :))
> 
> There are some people still working on MailScanner (believe they moved the
> sources to github) but have never seen a new release. Maybe the way forward
> would be to fork the code, supposedly there are some fixes in github that
> would also resolve the problem of the huge pileup of tmp files.
> 
> Thanks for explaining the differences between the 3 different ways of
> calling clamav!
> 
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Rick Cooper wrote:
> 
>> ClamAV uses the command line clamscan for scanning, is slow (have to
>> load dbs) and a bit of a resource hog, ClamAV module is a perl
>> interface to libclamav and is also a hog because it loads a copy of the db
> into memory for each child but only has to do it when MailScanner loads that
> child the first time. The best choice is neither, use clamd.
>> 
>> clamd shares the resources between children and thus the real memory
>> per child is much less and a far less load, is not perl. When
>> MailScanner uses clamd it talks directly to the clam daemon and
>> doesn't have to load anything at all, just tell the daemon where/what
>> to scan
>> 
>> IMHO the same thing should be done with spamd, I wrote the code years
>> ago and it's really no faster (or at least negligibly so) but far less
>> memory and resources once again, than using the perl interface. It was
> difficult to get Julian to incorporate the clamd code but he never did
> incorporate the spamd code unfortunatly.
>> 
>> Rick
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> _____________
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
>> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of
>> Philip Parsons
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:27 PM
>> To: MailScanner discussion
>> Subject: RE: 2 fold question
>> 
>> Anyone able to answer the first part of my question ? whats the diff
>> between using clamav or clamavmodule
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
>> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of
>> Philip Parsons
>> Sent: June-18-14 1:56 PM
>> To: MailScanner discussion
>> Subject: RE: 2 fold question
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Did that no go same error.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
>> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of
>> Jeremy McSpadden
>> Sent: June-18-14 1:01 PM
>> To: MailScanner discussion
>> Subject: Re: 2 fold question
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You could have a corrupted db file. wipe all files in
> /usr/local/share/clamav/ and run freshclam .. see if it starts then.
>> 
>> --
>> Jeremy McSpadden
>> Flux Labs | http://www.fluxlabs.net | Endless Solutions Office :
>> 850-250-5590x501 | Cell : 850-890-2543 | Fax : 850-254-2955
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Philip Parsons <pparsons at techeez.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>      No selinux is disabled and it just started in version 0.98.4
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Hoople Ltd, Registered in England and Wales No. 7556595
> Registered office: Plough Lane, Hereford, HR4 0LE
> 
> "Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the
> individual and not necessarily those of Hoople Ltd. You should be aware that
> Hoople Ltd. monitors its email service. This e-mail and any attached files
> are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This
> communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If
> you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error,
> you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying
> of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it."
> -- 
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 
> -- 
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20140619/934c4c79/attachment.html