Marc Haber wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:46:51 +0100, Alexander Nagel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> configfile (spam part): >> >> spamcheck: >> driver = pipe >> command = "/usr/sbin/exim4 -oMr spam-scanned -bS" >> use_bsmtp = true >> transport_filter = "/usr/bin/spamc -t 10 -u $local_part" >> home_directory = "/tmp" >> current_directory = "/tmp" >> user = Debian-exim >> group = Debian-exim >> log_output = true >> return_fail_output = true >> return_path_add = false > > Why are you using the outdated router/transport way to transfer your > data to spamassassin, effectively doubling your exim load? > > Greetings > Marc >
Not always. Better to shed the unwelcome spam during smtp, certainly. But - especially if you are in a mark-it, optionally quarantine-it, but not-allowed to reject it environment, as many ISP are, getting spam scanning off Exim's connect-time resource budget, especially with queue_only, at least allows handling more peak connections. OTOH - IF one is going to pass it all anyway, then a post-Exim 'milter' approach - preferably on a second box - would unload Exim even more. Mind - I'd not want to do either - better to put more resources up-front, and stricter pre-scanning rejection. But 'doubling' is not necessarily accurate here for all scenarios - only for those where your user-base is happy to have at least the worst spam shed 'up-front and final'. Bill -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
