Re: spamassassin + filter.sh
hi again, Matt Kettler wrote: At 11:53 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote: thanks for your help, migration to spamc/spamd wouldn't be the problem - it's even planned within the next half year. there is only one reason this hasn't been done so far: there is no desicion from the company management if the want to use only spamc/spamd or if they want to use amavis-new in combination with spamc/spamd and a virusscan (e.g. clamav-new). so i have to wait for their decision - that's the problem. Yeah, so? Why should this inhibit you from using spamd now? hm, but even if i implement spamd/spamc - i still got the problem that every mail (even if it's bigger then e.g. 4mb is passed through spamd/spamc then insteat of spamassassin. please correct me if i'm wrong regards, werner
Re: spamassassin + filter.sh
At 03:38 AM 1/13/2005, werner detter wrote: Yeah, so? Why should this inhibit you from using spamd now? hm, but even if i implement spamd/spamc - i still got the problem that every mail (even if it's bigger then e.g. 4mb is passed through spamd/spamc then insteat of spamassassin. please correct me if i'm wrong You're wrong... spamc automatically skips emails over a specified size, by default 250k. Hence why I keep suggesting spamc/spamd.. spamc does what you want to do already
Re: spamassassin + filter.sh
hi, i know that in the future i will have to use spamd/spamc but at the moment i can't migrate because of several reasons. that's why i have to get 'filter.sh' modified in the way that only mails smaller 100 kb are passed through spamassassin. regards, werner Matt Kettler wrote: At 05:12 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote: i use postfix on my mailserver, ans spamassassin for marking spammails, it work's really great except one aspect: postfix uses the filter.sh which gives the mail to spamassassin. my only problem is, that every mail is beeing scanned, even if they are bigger (e.g. 2mb). the most spam is smaller then 100k so the actuall setup isn't good for the ressources on the server. Using SpamAssassin by calling spamassassin isn't good at ALL for resources on the server. The spamassassin script is the simplest, but by far the most inefficient way to use SA. It's intended for hand-run tests and low volume sites. In the long run you'll want to shift to starting spamd at system startup and call spamc from filter.sh. 1) spamc automatically skips scans for really large messages 2) spamd will have pre-loaded an image of perl, saving a LOT of resources. 3) spamd will have pre-parsed /usr/share/spamassassin and /etc/mail/spamassassin, saving more resources. 4) spamd can have it's child count limited, preventing you from forking an infinite number of copies of SA. 5) If you're really high volume, you can set it up so they run on separate machines, thus separating the load of your MTA from the SA scanning back end. The downsides? 1) If you edit or add rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin you've got to restart. 2) a very few people have had their spamd's hog memory. This was more of a problem in 3.0.0 than it is now in 3.0.2. 3) if spamd crashes (rare, but a very few seem to be posting about this lately), you've got to restart it before mail scanning will resume.
Re: spamassassin + filter.sh
At 11:06 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote: i know that in the future i will have to use spamd/spamc but at the moment i can't migrate because of several reasons. that's why i have to get 'filter.sh' modified in the way that only mails smaller 100 kb are passed through spamassassin. Well, the modification of filter.sh might be harder than the migration to spamd What's inhibiting you from migrating to spamd? Perhaps we can help make that easier for you.
RE: spamassassin + filter.sh
-Original Message- From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:19 AM To: werner detter; users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: spamassassin + filter.sh At 11:06 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote: i know that in the future i will have to use spamd/spamc but at the moment i can't migrate because of several reasons. that's why i have to get 'filter.sh' modified in the way that only mails smaller 100 kb are passed through spamassassin. Well, the modification of filter.sh might be harder than the migration to spamd What's inhibiting you from migrating to spamd? Perhaps we can help make that easier for you. I'm really new to Postfix so I'm reading this thread with a lot of interest. I took a look at the Wiki and didn't see anything that addressed my concern. According to some of the doc related to implementing SA on the Postfix.org site, the example shown involved calling SA and not spamc. Apparently, the problem with this method is that if the spamassassin call fails, then Postfix won't process the message at all. So, I'm looking for pointers on using spamd/spamc with Postfix that won't cause delivery problems if there are operational problems with SA. TIA! Joe K.
Re: spamassassin + filter.sh
hi matt,
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 11:06 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote:
i know that in the future i will have to use spamd/spamc but at the
moment
i can't migrate because of several reasons. that's why i have to get
'filter.sh'
modified in the way that only mails smaller 100 kb are passed through
spamassassin.
Well, the modification of filter.sh might be harder than the migration
to spamd
What's inhibiting you from migrating to spamd? Perhaps we can help
make that easier for you.
thanks for your help, migration to spamc/spamd wouldn't be the problem
- it's even
planned within the next half year. there is only one reason this hasn't
been done so far:
there is no desicion from the company management if the want to use only
spamc/spamd
or if they want to use amavis-new in combination with spamc/spamd and a
virusscan (e.g. clamav-new).
so i have to wait for their decision - that's the problem.
so my idea to reduce the load/ramusage of the mailserver was to just
modifiy
the filter.sh that it only passes mails smaller then 100kb to
spamassassin (as a fast solution/hack).
why are the modifications in the filter.sh harder then the migration to
spamc/spamd?
IMHO it's just a shellskript why isn't it possible to get a sizecheck
integrated - in your opinion.
my idea (i'm not a shellskripting guru :D) was to replace this part of
the script:
*** cut ***
cd $INSPECT_DIR || { echo $INSPECT_DIR does not exist; exit $EX_TEMPFAIL; }
# Clean up when done or when aborting.
trap rm -f out.$$ 0 1 2 3 15
#cat | $SPAMASSASSIN -P | $SANITIZER \
# $ANOMY_CONF 2$ANOMY_LOG out.$$ || \
# { echo Message content rejected; exit $EX_UNAVAILABLE; }
cat | $SPAMASSASSIN out.$$ || { echo Message content rejected; exit
$EX_UNAVAILABLE; }
$SENDMAIL $@ out.$$
exit $?
** cut **
with something like
** cut ***
SIZE=/usr/bin/du -hsk out.$$|awk '{$1}'
trap rm -f out.$$ 0 1 2 3 15
if [ $SIZE = 100 ]
then
cat | $SPAMASSASSIN out.$$ || { echo Message content rejected;
exit $EX_UNAVAILABLE; }
$SENDMAIL $@ out.$$
exit $?
else
cat out.$$ || { echo Message content rejected; exit
$EX_UNAVAILABLE; }
$SENDMAIL $@ out.$$
exit $?
fi
*** cut ***
but this doesn't work that way.
thanx for your responses on this hot topic :)
regards,
werner detter
Re: spamassassin + filter.sh
At 11:53 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote: thanks for your help, migration to spamc/spamd wouldn't be the problem - it's even planned within the next half year. there is only one reason this hasn't been done so far: there is no desicion from the company management if the want to use only spamc/spamd or if they want to use amavis-new in combination with spamc/spamd and a virusscan (e.g. clamav-new). so i have to wait for their decision - that's the problem. Yeah, so? Why should this inhibit you from using spamd now? so my idea to reduce the load/ramusage of the mailserver was to just modifiy the filter.sh that it only passes mails smaller then 100kb to spamassassin (as a fast solution/hack). why are the modifications in the filter.sh harder then the migration to spamc/spamd? The main reason is that conversion to spamc is completely trivial It's so absurdly trival that doing nearly anything else is going to be harder: 1) start spamd 2) make sure you have an init script to start spamd on boot (there's plenty around for the taking) 3) modify filter.sh so that SPAMASSIN is now spamc not spamassassin That's it.. you're done. if [ $SIZE = 100 ] but this doesn't work that way. Exactly, because there's no easy way from a shell script to know how big your input stream is until you've already read it. This is why modifying filter.sh is going to be harder than converting to spamd. Converting to spamd is easy. Doing a really strange hack to a shell script is difficult.
RE: spamassassin + filter.sh
Title: RE: spamassassin + filter.sh If the call to spamd fails then the message is passed back. Basically if it fails it just isn't scanned. But there usually aren'y many problems with SA. Many of us are running it on high volume systems in complex configurations with no problems. Gary From: Kang, Joseph S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tue 1/11/2005 8:24 AMTo: users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: RE: spamassassin + filter.sh I'm really new to Postfix so I'm reading this thread with a lot of interest.I took a look at the Wiki and didn't see anything that addressed my concern.According to some of the doc related to implementing SA on the Postfix.orgsite, the example shown involved calling SA and not spamc. Apparently, theproblem with this method is that if the spamassassin call fails, thenPostfix won't process the message at all.So, I'm looking for pointers on using spamd/spamc with Postfix that won'tcause delivery problems if there are operational problems with SA.TIA!Joe K.
