* Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-31 12:21]:
> > Probably Bad things.
>
> Oh-oh... I increased it to 2 minutes. Thing are a bit better now.
>
> > Shouldn't be. What rev of openbsd are you running this spamd box on?
> > I run it on a single ide drive, I'm probably bigger than your site.
>
> Really? We get mail for different companies... Even though it's not a
> lot, we have about 600,000 entries in our DB, and IO is very saturated.
>
Well, your db scan interval would have beat you up pretty
good. Your db is about twice the size of mine, so perhaps you
need something with a bit more jam
>
> Did anybody try to offload spamd from the firewall to a server inside
> the network? Something like:
>
> internet -> FW -> spamd -> mailserver
Yes, I've done this on a number of occasions.
The easiest way to spread the load is to use the db synchronization
feature of spamd, then run multiple equivalent priority MX servers are your
spamd box, this way the smtp load for spamd will end up spread across
multiple machines, although there will still be significant db
activity for it.
However, if you are recieveing mail for more than one company
I'd simply spread it out amongst multiple boxen. I.E. if you have
10 companies, you can point 10 different MX's to 10 different spamd
boxes all which then redirect to your one common mailserver, no
problem at all.
>
> I haven't given much thought, but I guess when spamd translates the
> packet, the mail server will reply to the gateway, not spamd, right?
> Any way around it?
Basically, hosts talk to spamd until they are passed
then they don't talk to spamd at all. there isn't a good way
around that.
