2 fold question

Sat Jun 21 17:44:49 IST 2014

My setup results in a 40x code if spamd is down, any sysyem running *any*
daemon that is important should be using monitoring of some kind to make
sure the processes are up and running, that includes MailScanner. I actualy
ping spamd as well as checking for the running process just incase.

  _____  

From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Jerry
Benton
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:30 PM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: Re: 2 fold question

- 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/20140621/109be498/attachment.html 