Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude
Well I think I found the source of my problem, or I should say sources. After upgrading the RAM to 4 Gb the server would reboot after about 5 seconds of starting to load windows. It looks like I had some drive issues on the OS drive of the server. With the OS repaired and moving the swap file to a different disk the SM is working as before. Thanks everyone for there help. -- From: "Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA]" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:44 AM To: Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > I am starting to have some serious performance issues since I upgraded to > SM > 8.2. Although I can not be for sure that is it due to the upgrade as > usage > has also increased with added clients and the start of school. The big > issue is that the web interface becomes unresponsive for up to about 5 > minutes. The machine has 2 Gig of RAM, and a swap file of 5.5 Gig. In > Windows task manager I see my peak memory usage is now 10 gig. > > Right now I am not sure if the performance issues are being caused by RAM, > too much traffic, Smartermail, or Declude. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude
I'm not sure why everyone just wants to throw RAM at the thing. Using 10 GB of memory with an unspecified number of active webmail users could be reasonable in some cases, and totally unreasonable in others. Certainly SmarterMail may have some leaking issues in IIS/.Net that memory won't do much to fix. I would suggest at least offering how many logged in users you have at peak times, and how many accounts there are. I would also use something like Process Explorer to verify what process is hogging all of the memory. I would guess it is IIS and that there is some sort of .Net issue that exposes itself mostly under heavier load. I do have a client that has about 2,000 mostly webmail users who are pretty active with hundreds of GB's of mail in the accounts, and I have heard of no such issues with SM 8.x. They are Windows 2003 with 4 GB of memory and I think 4 cores, but they have a pretty fast RAID array. Regarding VMware, never short the server on disk I/O. You will see all sorts of CPU issues once the server gets backed up on disk and it falls apart pretty quickly after that. In Process Explorer running on the guest, if you see regular spikes in Hardware Interrupts CPU utilization, that says you don't have enough disk I/O. Regularly seeing more than 10% for that would indicate an issue that needs attention. Matt On 9/26/2011 3:14 PM, Nick Hayer wrote: > I have it on a VM - vmware 4.1 - no issues at all. Why not just PTV > it now - give it more ram and processors in the migration and see what > happens? > > -Nick > > *MadRiverAccess.com**|**Skywaves.com Tech Support* > US/Canada 877-873-6482 or International +1-802-229-6574 > Emergency Support 24/7: supp...@skywaves.net > General and Non-Emergency support ticket: > https://www.skywaves.com/content/secure/support_ticket.htm > > > > > *From*: "Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA]" > *Sent*: Monday, September 26, 2011 3:08 PM > *To*: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > *Subject*: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > > > Running Win 2003 Standard on 32 bit hardware. I am going to bump the > RAM up > to 4 Gb tonight to see if that helps. I should say what I am seeing is > that > the SM Web interface becomes unresponsive at times. I have been unable to > correlate the unresponsive interface with specific high CPU or Memory use > though. > > I have been planning on installing a new Win 2K8 64 bit OS to migrate > SM to.. > Is there any issues or suggestions on setting this up as a Virtual > machine > in a VMware environment? > > ---------- > From: "Randy A" > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:47 PM > To: > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > > > Which version of Windows server are you running? That will be important > > also as, for example, WIN Server 2003 Standard only allows a max of 4GB > > RAM, while WIN Server 2003 Enterprise has a 64GB limit > > -Original Message- > > From: Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA] [mailto:sfoss...@aea8.k12.ia.us] > > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:44 AM > > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > > > > I am starting to have some serious performance issues since I > upgraded to > > SM 8.2. Although I can not be for sure that is it due to the upgrade as > > usage has also increased with added clients and the start of school. The > > big issue is that the web interface becomes unresponsive for up to > about 5 > > minutes. The machine has 2 Gig of RAM, and a swap file of 5.5 Gig. In > > Windows task manager I see my peak memory usage is now 10 gig. > > > > Right now I am not sure if the performance issues are being caused by > RAM, > > too much traffic, Smartermail, or Declude. > > > > > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > > --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type > "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude
I have it on a VM - vmware 4.1 - no issues at all. Why not just PTV it now - give it more ram and processors in the migration and see what happens? -Nick MadRiverAccess.com|Skywaves.com Tech Support US/Canada 877-873-6482 or International +1-802-229-6574 Emergency Support 24/7: supp...@skywaves.net General and Non-Emergency support ticket: https://www.skywaves.com/content/secure/support_ticket.htm From: "Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA]" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 3:08 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude Running Win 2003 Standard on 32 bit hardware. I am going to bump the RAM up to 4 Gb tonight to see if that helps. I should say what I am seeing is that the SM Web interface becomes unresponsive at times. I have been unable to correlate the unresponsive interface with specific high CPU or Memory use though. I have been planning on installing a new Win 2K8 64 bit OS to migrate SM to. Is there any issues or suggestions on setting this up as a Virtual machine in a VMware environment? -- From: "Randy A" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:47 PM To: Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > Which version of Windows server are you running? That will be important > also as, for example, WIN Server 2003 Standard only allows a max of 4GB > RAM, while WIN Server 2003 Enterprise has a 64GB limit > -Original Message- > From: Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA] [mailto:sfoss...@aea8.k12.ia.us] > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:44 AM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > > I am starting to have some serious performance issues since I upgraded to > SM 8.2. Although I can not be for sure that is it due to the upgrade as > usage has also increased with added clients and the start of school. The > big issue is that the web interface becomes unresponsive for up to about 5 > minutes. The machine has 2 Gig of RAM, and a swap file of 5.5 Gig. In > Windows task manager I see my peak memory usage is now 10 gig. > > Right now I am not sure if the performance issues are being caused by RAM, > too much traffic, Smartermail, or Declude. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude
Running Win 2003 Standard on 32 bit hardware. I am going to bump the RAM up to 4 Gb tonight to see if that helps. I should say what I am seeing is that the SM Web interface becomes unresponsive at times. I have been unable to correlate the unresponsive interface with specific high CPU or Memory use though. I have been planning on installing a new Win 2K8 64 bit OS to migrate SM to. Is there any issues or suggestions on setting this up as a Virtual machine in a VMware environment? -- From: "Randy A" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:47 PM To: Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > Which version of Windows server are you running? That will be important > also as, for example, WIN Server 2003 Standard only allows a max of 4GB > RAM, while WIN Server 2003 Enterprise has a 64GB limit > -Original Message- > From: Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA] [mailto:sfoss...@aea8.k12.ia.us] > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:44 AM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude > > I am starting to have some serious performance issues since I upgraded to > SM 8.2. Although I can not be for sure that is it due to the upgrade as > usage has also increased with added clients and the start of school. The > big issue is that the web interface becomes unresponsive for up to about 5 > minutes. The machine has 2 Gig of RAM, and a swap file of 5.5 Gig. In > Windows task manager I see my peak memory usage is now 10 gig. > > Right now I am not sure if the performance issues are being caused by RAM, > too much traffic, Smartermail, or Declude. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude
Which version of Windows server are you running? That will be important also as, for example, WIN Server 2003 Standard only allows a max of 4GB RAM, while WIN Server 2003 Enterprise has a 64GB limit Sincerely, Randy Armbrecht Global Web Solutions, Inc. Office: 804.442.5300 option 1 Toll Free: 877.800.4562 24 /7 Tech Support! Your Internet Source.Since 1996! NEW GlobalSync Remote-BackUp Solutions! Web Hosting - E-Mail - Spam/Virus Gateway Services Hi-Speed DSL and Wireless Internet - T-1/T-3's PC Support - Networking - Virus/MalWare Removal 25% discount on most services for Non-Profits! Call us today! -Original Message- From: Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA] [mailto:sfoss...@aea8.k12.ia.us] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:44 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude I am starting to have some serious performance issues since I upgraded to SM 8.2. Although I can not be for sure that is it due to the upgrade as usage has also increased with added clients and the start of school. The big issue is that the web interface becomes unresponsive for up to about 5 minutes. The machine has 2 Gig of RAM, and a swap file of 5.5 Gig. In Windows task manager I see my peak memory usage is now 10 gig. Right now I am not sure if the performance issues are being caused by RAM, too much traffic, Smartermail, or Declude. _ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Your are asked to notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Prairie Lakes Area Education Agency. Prairie Lakes Area Education Agency accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. - _ Scott Fosseen - Systems Engineer - Prairie Lakes AEA - http://www.aea8.k12.ia.us/tech _ In a study of 200,000 ostriches over a period of 80 years, no one reported a single case where an ostrich buried its head in the sand (or attempted to do so - apart from Bones ). _ --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the globalweb.net MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude
If you are running 32bit Windows definitely take your memory up to 4GB. If you are running 64bit Windows take it higher (until you stop most of your swapping). Mike Michael Graveen m...@anim8.net I am starting to have some serious performance issues since I upgraded to SM 8.2. Although I can not be for sure that is it due to the upgrade as usage has also increased with added clients and the start of school. The big issue is that the web interface becomes unresponsive for up to about 5 minutes. The machine has 2 Gig of RAM, and a swap file of 5.5 Gig. In Windows task manager I see my peak memory usage is now 10 gig. Right now I am not sure if the performance issues are being caused by RAM, too much traffic, Smartermail, or Declude. _ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Your are asked to notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Prairie Lakes Area Education Agency. Prairie Lakes Area Education Agency accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. - _ Scott Fosseen - Systems Engineer - Prairie Lakes AEA - http://www.aea8.k12.ia.us/tech _ In a study of 200,000 ostriches over a period of 80 years, no one reported a single case where an ostrich buried its head in the sand (or attempted to do so - apart from Bones ). _ --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance issues with SM 8.2 w Declude
On 9/26/2011 11:44 AM, Scott Fosseen [Prairie Lakes AEA] wrote: > The machine has 2 Gig of RAM, and a swap file of 5.5 Gig. In > Windows task manager I see my peak memory usage is now 10 gig. > > Right now I am not sure if the performance issues are being caused by RAM, > too much traffic, Smartermail, or Declude. On the surface I would suggest that RAM is your big problem. If you have 2G and you're using 5-10G then you are spending a lot of time swapping through IO. RAM is pretty cheap these days, so I would probably boost that first (not knowing more about it). _M -- Pete McNeil, President MicroNeil Research Corporation www.microneil.com 703.779.4909 x7010 --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance fromfile
> In the current version, it will go through all entries. However, as you > pointed out, there is no benefit in continuing processing with a fromfile > after the first match is reached -- so the logic will be changed for the > next release (and therefore giving the fromfile a slight performance > advantage over filters -- but it would only be noticeable if there were a > lot, perhaps 1000s, of entries). Thanks. When processing 175K messages per day, every little bit helps. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You --- [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] Performance fromfile
A while back, I had asked about the comparison in performance of a fromfile and a filter using MAILFROM ENDSWITH. Scott, you stated that would not be much difference. But wouldn't Declude stop processing a fromfile as soon as a match is found, where in a filter to goes through the whole file? That will happen. :) In the current version, it will go through all entries. However, as you pointed out, there is no benefit in continuing processing with a fromfile after the first match is reached -- so the logic will be changed for the next release (and therefore giving the fromfile a slight performance advantage over filters -- but it would only be noticeable if there were a lot, perhaps 1000s, of entries). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers. Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day evaluation. --- [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] Performance question concerning custom filters
Is there any measurable performance impact to removing all extraneous lines from a custom filter file (comments, etc.)? In other words, are these files read into memory every time Declude is run, meaning that you have to move more data around for each message that is scanned? Or maybe due to some other related impact that would benefit from trimming down all of the extraneous data? There would be a very slight performance improvement by removing extraneous line from filter files. However, it is unlikely that the improvement would be noticeable. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers. Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day evaluation. --- [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] Performance
Great points. I'm using your (I think it was your) Gibberish / Anti Gibberish tests already. It was the flexibility of the filter ability that caused me to plunk down more money to the wonderful folks at Computer Horizons. Rob --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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] Performance
I recommended searching the headers for your backup server because I believe that the REVDNS test is moved to a different hop when you get a hit on IPBYPASS, otherwise that would be the way to go. The ANYWHERE search only works with whitelisting from the Global.cfg file. In filter files you can use BODY, HEADERS, HELO, MAILFROM, REMOTEIP, REVDNS, ALLRECIPS, or SUBJECT. I have filters set up exclusively for BODY and SUBEJCT, and other filters that focus on HELO, MAILFROM and REVDNS. I have a pseudo whitelist that I am using as well, with the filters based on REVDNS. If you are looking to help insure that E-mail from a particular domain gets through, it's better to just subtract points in a filter file rather than whitelisting because of the potential of forging addresses in spam and still desiring some protection (obscure domains are pretty safe though for whitelisting though). I tend to give a negative weight for such things that is equal to my fail weight when those domains occasionally find their way onto SpamCop and MailPolice, or just credit back points for what they regularly fail. I also use the REVDNS test whenever possible since this is the least likely to be forged and there is only a small piece of data which limits multiple hits (as opposed to searching HEADERS). For example, with Yahoo Groups, one would use the following when 5 points are being added regularly due to RBL's and inadvertently by other filters: REVDNS -5 ENDSWITH .grp.scd.yahoo.com This is a good example because Yahoo Groups does fail some tests that I use, but as was pointed out yesterday, spam can be pushed through these groups occasionally and if you are keyword matching for URL's for instance, subtracting points would only level the playing field before additional tests can score it. Matt Robert Grosshandler wrote: Having just upgraded from JM Standard to Pro, I'm wondering about the best way to approach some of the tests I previously set up. Is there any difference between the following from a performance or maintenance standpoint?: Version A Whitelist anywhere blahblah Or Version B BODY -50 CONTAINS blahblah Thanks Rob === Robert N. Grosshandler www.iGive.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] Performance
"whitelist anywhere" won't work, this is not valid syntax. If you use this directive in your .cfg file: PREWHITELIST ON then you get "short-circuit evaluation", and a WHITELISTed message will get processed a little faster than it otherwise would. Without that directive, all tests are performed on the message, because any of them could weight the message enough to change the action performed. In my humble opinion, you should avoid whitelisting; I suggest using counterweights instead as you illustrated in your question. Save whitelisting for things that are unquestionable, like whitelisting the IP of an internal mail server. Andrew 8) -Original Message- From: Robert Grosshandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance Having just upgraded from JM Standard to Pro, I'm wondering about the best way to approach some of the tests I previously set up. Is there any difference between the following from a performance or maintenance standpoint?: Version A Whitelist anywhere blahblah Or Version B BODY -50 CONTAINS blahblah Thanks Rob === Robert N. Grosshandler www.iGive.com --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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] Performance
(Whups! My bad, "whitelist anywhere" is right there in black and white in the current online manual.) If you use this directive in your .cfg file: PREWHITELIST ON then you get "short-circuit evaluation", and a WHITELISTed message will get processed a little faster than it otherwise would. Without that directive, all tests are performed on the message, because any of them could weight the message enough to change the action performed. In my humble opinion, you should avoid whitelisting; I suggest using counterweights instead as you illustrated in your question. Save whitelisting for things that are unquestionable, like whitelisting the IP of an internal mail server. Andrew 8) -Original Message- From: Robert Grosshandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Performance Having just upgraded from JM Standard to Pro, I'm wondering about the best way to approach some of the tests I previously set up. Is there any difference between the following from a performance or maintenance standpoint?: Version A Whitelist anywhere blahblah Or Version B BODY -50 CONTAINS blahblah Thanks Rob === Robert N. Grosshandler www.iGive.com --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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] Performance
Is there any difference between the following from a performance or maintenance standpoint?: Version A Whitelist anywhere blahblah Or Version B BODY -50 CONTAINS blahblah Performance-wise, they should both be about the same. However, the global.cfg file only allows 200 WHITELIST entries, which would make the filter a better choice. Also, the filter allows for more flexibility. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers. Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day evaluation. --- [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.
