Re: can Pyzor run localy?
Stuart Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Alan Shine wrote:>> Hi,>> I have a few questuions regrding the benefit/use of SA fatures.>> >> 1. Can Pyzord run localy as SURBL does with rbldnsd (check the >> message with local repository, not with the Pyzor web servers) ?>See: http://pyzor.sourceforge.net/>Since the entire system is released under the GPL, people are free to >host their own independent servers. Server peering is planned for a >future release.What I meant in my first question is: dnsrbld can import localy the zone files - via rsync, can pyzord do the same? - I already understood that pyzord can be installed any where, but can it import the signature files localy? >> 2.I would like to activate more features to SA (I currently use only >> SARE rules).>> We are considering SURBL, DCC and Pyzor. >> My question is - what are the preferable features that I can add to SA, >> that will result in better spam identification, and that will cost the >> lowest in performance time?>Probably SURBL but if you are going to enable network tests it is best >to have as many activated as possible from the start.>http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SingleUserUnixInstall __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: can Pyzor run localy?
Stuart Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Alan Shine wrote:>> Hi,>> I have a few questuions regrding the benefit/use of SA fatures.>> >> 1. Can Pyzord run localy as SURBL does with rbldnsd (check the >> message with local repository, not with the Pyzor web servers) ?>See: http://pyzor.sourceforge.net/>Since the entire system is released under the GPL, people are free to >host their own independent servers. Server peering is planned for a >future release.What I meant in my first question is: dnsrbld can import localy the zone files - via rsync, can pyzord do the same? - I already understood that pyzord can be installed any where, but can it import the signature files localy? >> 2.I would like to activate more features to SA (I currently use only >> SARE rules).>> We are considering SURBL, DCC and Pyzor. >> My question is - what are the preferable features that I can add to SA, >> that will result in better spam identification, and that will cost the >> lowest in performance time?>Probably SURBL but if you are going to enable network tests it is best >to have as many activated as possible from the start.>http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SingleUserUnixInstall __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
can Pyzor run localy?
Hi, I have a few questuions regrding the benefit/use of SA fatures. 1. Can Pyzord run localy as SURBL does with rbldnsd (check the message with local repository, not with the Pyzor web servers) ? 2.I would like to activate more features to SA (I currently use only SARE rules). We are considering SURBL, DCC and Pyzor. My question is - what are the preferable features that I can add to SA, that will result in better spam identification, and that will cost the lowest in performance time? Thanks a lot. Alan Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Some questions regarding SURBL, Pyzor, and DCC
Hi, I have a few questuions regrding the benefit/use of SA fatures. 1.I would like to activate more features to SA (I currently use only SARE rules). We are considering SURBL, DCC and Pyzor. My question is - what are the preferable features that I can add to SA, that will result in better spam identification, and that will cost the lowest in performance time? 2. Can Pyzord run localy as SURBL does with rbldnsd (check the message with local repository, not with the Pyzor web servers) ? Thanks a lot. Alan Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: Re[2]: very slow performance with SA
Hi all, First of all, thanks for the fast replies. I'll start with the following question: 1. Is rate of 16 messages/second normal while running with only rules engine, and only installation rules. (DL 380, dual CPU - 2.4GHz, hyper thread, 4G ram, radhat 8, 10 spamd children). and these are the following results to your suggestions: 1. I made sure that I'm running without any network checks, and disabled the URIDNSBL. this didn't help at all. 2. I tested SA with only one rules file from SARE each time, non of then is time consuming or loading the system more than the others. When I'm running only with the installation rule sets - the amount of idle CPU is in between 10-15%. 3. these are the sare rules I'm using: 70_sare_adult, 70_sare_bayes_poisen_nxm, 70_sare_redirect_post3.0.0, 70_sare_genlsub0, 70_sare_genlsub1, 70_sare_header0, , 70_sare_header1, 70_sare_highrisk, 70_sare_html0 , 70_sare_html1, 70_sare_oem, 70_sare_random, 70_sare_specific, 70_sare_spoof, 70_sare_unsub, 70_sare_uri, 70_sare_top200, 70_sare_bml_post_25x, 99_sare_fraud_post_25x, evilnumbers. thanks, for any reply, Alan.Robert Menschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Alan,Tuesday, February 1, 2005, 10:59:02 AM, you wrote:AS> Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:39:14AM -0800, Alan Shine wrote:>>>I have one spamd - with the default of 5 max children.>>This is likely your problem, if you are truly processing at 16 a sec>>then 5 children probably won't handle the load. Try upping the number>>of children available. The optimal number is however many you need to>>handle your peak without overwhelming your system resources.AS> I understand, but allthough I'm running 5 max children ny CPU isAS> between 0-2% idle.AS> (I have dual CPU with hyper thread).5 max spamd children, 16 emails/sec, means each child is processing3/sec. Since you have plenty of CPU available and you are notswapping, if you double your spamd to 10 children, do you doubleyour throughput? With or without the SARE rules?Also, which SARE rules do you have, specifically? Maybe you can dropone or two and retain most of the SARE benefit without the performancehit of the most aggressive/expensive rules files? (Please list ALLcustom rules files, not just the ones with SARE in the file name.)For that matter, do you also have custom rules? Any rules in local.cfor other file?Bob Menschel Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! Try it today!
Re: very slow performance with SA
Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:40:35AM -0800, Alan Shine wrote:>> 2. I can't figure out how to turn URIDNSBL off (I couldn't find it > >in the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf). So...how can I turn it off?>Comment out the loadplugin line in init.pre>> 3. The emails that are missed as spam have SA markup, but it is too low >>(my required_score is set to 7 in order to avoid false positive).>The SA scores are optimized to catch spam at a score of 5, setting to>something higher than 5 means that you aren't going to catch as much>spam.>Michael OK. thanks a lot. Alan> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: very slow performance with SA
Alan Shine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:59:02AM -0800, Alan Shine wrote:> > I understand, but allthough I'm running 5 max children ny CPU is between 0-2% idle. > > (I have dual CPU with hyper thread).> Possibly you are IO bound. Did you turn off bayes/awl? Maybe you'rerunning URIDNSBL which may not get turned off with dns_available no (Ican't remember).The emails that are missed as spam, do they have any SA markup? or isit missing altogether?Michael 1. I have bayes turned off, I'll turn awl off also. 2. I can't figure out how to turn URIDNSBL off (I couldn't find it in the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf). So...how can I turn it off? 3. The emails that are missed as spam have SA markup, but it is too low (my required_score is set to 7 in order to avoid false positive). Thanks, Alan Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: very slow performance with SA
Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:39:14AM -0800, Alan Shine wrote:>> >>I have one spamd - with the default of 5 max children.>>>This is likely your problem, if you are truly processing at 16 a sec>then 5 children probably won't handle the load. Try upping the number>of children available. The optimal number is however many you need to>handle your peak without overwhelming your system resources.>MichaelI understand, but allthough I'm running 5 max children ny CPU is between 0-2% idle. (I have dual CPU with hyper thread). Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Re: very slow performance with SA
Hi, thanks a lot for your answers, I wrote my responses right after every answer. >jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>It sounds like you are trying to run DNS based rules either without a>DNS or off a test site that does not exist anymore. Some of the BLs that>used to be available are gone. >And you should upgrade to 3.0.2 for some stability reasons. I don't think I run DNS tests because I'm have the following settings in my local.cf file:dns_available no >Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >1) You said you have 3 spamcs, but How many spamd's do you have, and how >large is their memory footprint? I have one spamd - with the default of 5 max children. >2) you claim "rules engine only". What exact settings have you changed to >ensure this? I have the follwing settings in the local.cf file: dns_available nouse_razor2 0use_pyzor 0 use_dcc 0 >3) As a test, you might want to back out all of SARE's rules and check your >message processing speed with stock-rules only. That should be very fast. >If it is fast without SARE, then one of the SARE rulesets is bogging you >down, try adding them back one at a time. >If it is not fast without SARE, you have other problems, and you probably >have some high overhead subsystem running. (the answer to 2 may prove >useful here.) when I'm running SA with the default ruleset (the one that comes with the installation), it proccesses 16 messages per second.I don't know if it is the avarage amount of messages that SA can proccess.anyway - 16 per second is not good enough for me - because the spam catch rate is very low - I must add more rules to it. oh, and another thing - My computer has very low swap rate - so it's probably not the preforking bug mentioned earlier. thanks a lot,Alan. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
very slow performance with SA
Hi, I'm new to SA, and currently testing it in order to integrate it with our systems. The performance appears to be very bad - 6 messages per second. I'm running SA 3.0.1 on DL380 - dual CPU, hyper thread, 4G RAM, with Redhat 8. spamd is running with the rules engine only, and with most of the rules from SARE, beside bigevil. The CPU is in 0% idle most of the time, and I have 3 spamc proccesses on the same machine. (when I run this with Java application instead of spamc I receive the same results). and my question is - are 6 messages per second the avarage rate of SA, if not - what can I do in order to improve it. Regards, Alan Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
3.0.1 uninitialized value in pattern match - bug or nothing to worry about?
Hi, I'm using SA 3.0.1 via spamd, running on Redhat 8. some of the mails cause the spamd to write the following message: use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/pm line 225(sometimes line 179) is it OK? is everything continue to work alright? have I encountered a little bug? thanks, Alan Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Peformance problems using spamd
Hi, I'm using spamassassin 2.64, with Mandrake linux 9.2, on Compaq evo (Pentium 4, 2.4Ghz, 512MB Ram). I'm sending it eml files (from my company's mail DB - in order to find spam saved in the DB), via java program, using spamd(with Bayes DB, no DCC, Pyzor etc. is used).. -when I have one process sending messages to spamd, one message is proccessed in 0.6 seconds. -when I have 2 proccesses sending messages to spamd(to the same port), the perfomance is getting much worse, and a message is proccessed in 1.4 seconds (for 3 proccesses - 2 seconds etc.) I'm probably doing something wrong, but I can't figute it out. Regards, Alan__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
