<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">- 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. <div><br></div><div>- 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.</div><div><br></div><div>- I have never seen memory leaks with spamd. It is a rather solid product. </div><div><br></div><div>- If your server is using all of its memory, it is supposed to. That is what linux does. It is normal behavior. </div><div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">-</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Jerry Benton</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a href="http://www.mailborder.com">www.mailborder.com</a></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 19, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Rick Cooper <<a href="mailto:rcooper@dwford.com">rcooper@dwford.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Mailscanner is fine with spamd restarting same as when clamd reloads, when<br>spamd restarts (IIRC) it's children finish processing before dying. I used<br>spamd with MailScanner for several years now and have had not issues, same<br>score and as far as performance (speed) it's pretty much six of one and half<br>dozen of the other. I origianlly setup timers on both and ran both on each<br>email and one might be a very bit faster on a given email and then flip so<br>pretty much even, would say over all no difference, resource wise very big<br>difference. Now I don't have 200,000 emails a day but I would bet that spamd<br>would out perform the MailScanner implemenation on a very busy server <br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br>[<a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a>] On Behalf Of Randal,<br>Phil<br>Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:32 AM<br>To: MailScanner discussion<br>Subject: RE: 2 fold question<br><br>A spamd failure could let a lot of spam through (or a backlog of unprocessed<br>email, depending on how it was implemented).<br><br>Memory leaks in spamd could also prove problematic, unless it had scheduled<br>restarts, assuming that MailScanner could cope with that.<br><br>Nonetheless, it would be interesting to compare the performance of a spamd<br>version with the current implementation.<br><br>Slower, I suspect, but less of a memory hog.<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Phil<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br>[<a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a>] On Behalf Of Remco<br>Barendse<br>Sent: 19 June 2014 15:52<br>To: MailScanner discussion<br>Subject: RE: 2 fold question<br><br>What a pity, before i wouldn't care about how much memory any given app<br>would use, now that i have virtualized everything, it starts to matter :))<br><br>There are some people still working on MailScanner (believe they moved the<br>sources to github) but have never seen a new release. Maybe the way forward<br>would be to fork the code, supposedly there are some fixes in github that<br>would also resolve the problem of the huge pileup of tmp files.<br><br>Thanks for explaining the differences between the 3 different ways of<br>calling clamav!<br><br>On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Rick Cooper wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">ClamAV uses the command line clamscan for scanning, is slow (have to<br>load dbs) and a bit of a resource hog, ClamAV module is a perl<br>interface to libclamav and is also a hog because it loads a copy of the db<br></blockquote>into memory for each child but only has to do it when MailScanner loads that<br>child the first time. The best choice is neither, use clamd.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>clamd shares the resources between children and thus the real memory<br>per child is much less and a far less load, is not perl. When<br>MailScanner uses clamd it talks directly to the clam daemon and<br>doesn't have to load anything at all, just tell the daemon where/what<br>to scan<br><br>IMHO the same thing should be done with spamd, I wrote the code years<br>ago and it's really no faster (or at least negligibly so) but far less<br>memory and resources once again, than using the perl interface. It was<br></blockquote>difficult to get Julian to incorporate the clamd code but he never did<br>incorporate the spamd code unfortunatly.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Rick<br><br>______________________________________________________________________<br>______________________________________________________________________<br>_____________<br>From: <a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br>[<a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a>] On Behalf Of<br>Philip Parsons<br>Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:27 PM<br>To: MailScanner discussion<br>Subject: RE: 2 fold question<br><br>Anyone able to answer the first part of my question ? whats the diff<br>between using clamav or clamavmodule<br><br><br><br>From: <a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br>[<a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a>] On Behalf Of<br>Philip Parsons<br>Sent: June-18-14 1:56 PM<br>To: MailScanner discussion<br>Subject: RE: 2 fold question<br><br><br><br>Did that no go same error.<br><br><br><br>From: <a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br>[<a href="mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info">mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info</a>] On Behalf Of<br>Jeremy McSpadden<br>Sent: June-18-14 1:01 PM<br>To: MailScanner discussion<br>Subject: Re: 2 fold question<br><br><br><br>You could have a corrupted db file. wipe all files in<br></blockquote>/usr/local/share/clamav/ and run freshclam .. see if it starts then.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>--<br>Jeremy McSpadden<br>Flux Labs | <a href="http://www.fluxlabs.net">http://www.fluxlabs.net</a> | Endless Solutions Office :<br>850-250-5590x501 | Cell : 850-890-2543 | Fax : 850-254-2955<br><br><br><br>On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Philip Parsons <<a href="mailto:pparsons@techeez.com">pparsons@techeez.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><br><br> No selinux is disabled and it just started in version 0.98.4<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>--<br>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by<br>MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.<br><br><br>--<br>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by<br>MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.<br><br><br><br></blockquote>Hoople Ltd, Registered in England and Wales No. 7556595<br>Registered office: Plough Lane, Hereford, HR4 0LE<br><br>"Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the<br>individual and not necessarily those of Hoople Ltd. You should be aware that<br>Hoople Ltd. monitors its email service. This e-mail and any attached files<br>are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This<br>communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If<br>you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error,<br>you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying<br>of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in<br>error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it."<br>-- <br>MailScanner mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br>http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner<br><br>Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting<br><br>Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! <br>-- <br>MailScanner mailing list<br>mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info<br>http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner<br><br>Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting<br><br>Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! <br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>