Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
Joe, Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote: JWC #2 Is the Declude replacement to the Ipswitch mail handler that JWC much more inefficient, or does JunkMail just take alot more JWC processing? Declude doesn't replace the mail handler. It is handed the message by IMAIL, processes it, and depending upon action, passes it back. Or it could hold or delete the message. As such it impacts delivery in two significant ways: 1) it adds time to the process you can judge how much time by turning declude logging to DEBUG and parsing out the Total time: lines. However, be prepared for really, really big logs. On my system the time declude takes is usually never less than about 450 ms and the upper range is about 2500 ms. Most messages are processed in about 1100 ms. or so. 2) Queue DQ issue If declude just releases the message back to Imail I haven't observed any queue problems. However, if there are many messages coming in at once so that the DECLUDE DQ mechanism is triggered and certain messages end up in the overflow directory then those messages can take a little longer to process. However, I've seen nothing more than a few minutes so I do not believe this really interferes with the queue runs by IMAIL which in my case would be every 30 minutes. And in my case these instances occur infrequently. But I've seen nothing caused by Declude that would account for an hour delay in message handling. In my opinion that is more likely to be caused by something other than Declude. I just added a custom external test and have been observing it very closely to determine impact on delivery. That's why I've considered some of this fwiw. Terry Fritts --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
Has anyone found MessageSniffer to add any significant CPU load before/after implementation? David WiSS Limited -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-owner;declude.com] On Behalf Of Uhte, Russ Sent: 04 November 2002 17:06 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please... Joe, I can't comment for anyone else, but I'd like to give my $.02 on question 1. We've recently purchased MessageSniffer, and its results have been outstanding. We use a weight of 20 as our breaking point on when a message can no longer be delivered. I've set MessageSniffer with a weight of 17. We've almost completely eliminated spam!!! -Russ -Original Message- From: Joe Wolf / CompuService [mailto:joe;csgo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please... First I'm still a newbie to JunkMail so forgive my ignorance. Two issues to cover: #1I am basicly using the default settings for JunkMail. I have had a few valid messages marked as spam, but I still get quite a bit of spam thru that I wish to get rid of. Does anyone have a template, or suggestion on what settings work the best for JunkMail? I know that I can customize anything I want, but at the same time I don't want to make it my life to investigate which database is best, etc. Any help would be appreciated. #2My mail server does quite a bit of list serving. I've noticed that since I installed JunkMail my server is running further and further behind. I've gone from nearly immediate delivery of messages to nearly an hour behind. Is the Declude replacement to the Ipswitch mail handler that much more inefficient, or does JunkMail just take alot more processing? My CPU utilization chart is not too high, but it take so long to process messages. Thanks, Joe --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. --- --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
Our test server does not show any significant difference between Declude alone and Declude w/ Message Sniffer. Performance logs report average processing times of about 170ms per message - and this includes the time it takes to load the rule base and the message under test. Our test bed server sees about 450ms on average - but most of that is IO rather than CPU and our test server is intentionally underpowered. Our production Linux gateway running Message Sniffer processes messages in less than 40ms per message consistently. Hope this helps, _M | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-owner;declude.com] On Behalf Of | David Lewis-Waller | Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:15 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please... | | | Has anyone found MessageSniffer to add any significant CPU | load before/after implementation? | | David | WiSS Limited | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-owner;declude.com] On Behalf Of Uhte, Russ | Sent: 04 November 2002 17:06 | To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' | Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please... | | | Joe, | I can't comment for anyone else, but I'd like to give my $.02 | on question 1. We've recently purchased MessageSniffer, and | its results have been outstanding. We use a weight of 20 as | our breaking point on when a message can no longer be | delivered. I've set MessageSniffer with a weight of 17. | We've almost completely eliminated spam!!! -Russ | | -Original Message- | From: Joe Wolf / CompuService [mailto:joe;csgo.com] | Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:54 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please... | | | First I'm still a newbie to JunkMail so forgive my ignorance. | Two issues to | cover: | | #1I am basicly using the default settings for JunkMail. | I have had | a | few valid messages marked as spam, but I still get quite a | bit of spam thru that I wish to get rid of. Does anyone have | a template, or suggestion on what settings work the best for | JunkMail? I know that I can customize anything I want, but | at the same time I don't want to make it my life to | investigate which database is best, etc. Any help would be | appreciated. | | #2My mail server does quite a bit of list serving. I've noticed | that | since I installed JunkMail my server is running further and | further behind. I've gone from nearly immediate delivery of | messages to nearly an hour behind. Is the Declude | replacement to the Ipswitch mail handler that much more | inefficient, or does JunkMail just take alot more processing? | My CPU utilization chart is not too high, but it take so | long to process messages. | | Thanks, | Joe | | --- | [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. --- --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
David, Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote: DLW Has anyone found MessageSniffer to add any significant CPU load DLW before/after implementation? No noticeable load. If you are are already using it you can get this information in the sniffer logs - see http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/TechnicalDetails.html for log details - On my system average set up time is 173 ms and average scan time is 15 ms or a total of 188 ms. Terry Fritts --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
Everyone thanks for the replies. I did take a look at the overflow directory and it was empty. I cleaned out the spool directory and offloaded all outbound to our production servers. We'll see how this works out before digging in too far. This server has a dedicated T1 and is saturated some of the time. On busy days it sends 100,000 messages out, but on average only about half of that. The CPU load stays at about 30 - 35%, but that's all. It should now send everything to our production machines and should keep nothing in the queue. I hope that solves it. Thanks again, Joe - Original Message - From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please... #2My mail server does quite a bit of list serving. I've noticed that since I installed JunkMail my server is running further and further behind. I've gone from nearly immediate delivery of messages to nearly an hour behind. Is the Declude replacement to the Ipswitch mail handler that much more inefficient, or does JunkMail just take alot more processing? My CPU utilization chart is not too high, but it take so long to process messages. The only thing that I can think of is that you're already close to the limits of your server. Declude JunkMail only scans mailing list messages once (when they come in), and can actually improve delivery time. I'm guessing that the extra overhead of spam scanning (which isn't that much, BTW) is pushing you to the point where the delays are occurring. When the mail is slow in being delivered, do you see lots of files in the \IMail\spool\overflow directory? -Scott --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Two JunkMail questions please...
Last month our single Imail server running Declude AV and JM did 3,427,511 mails...roughly 76.8 emails a minute (about 13,000 a/cs). Our CPU load is small. However when you run JM you will be doing a heck of a lot of DNS queries. Scott could the delay on a slow link for all these queries pull the email delivery back by as much as an hour? It's very unlikely that the delay of a slow link would cause an hour delay on E-mail. DNS lookups often do take a long time to come back, even on a fast link (as some misconfigured DNS servers will drop packets, and there is no way to detect that until a timeout occurs). Even on an old 14.4Kbps modem, the delay due to DNS traffic shouldn't be more than a second or so per E-mail processed (versus perhaps about 5 seconds to transfer the E-mail). -Scott --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
