Re: is lock needed when using spamd/c combo
- Original Message - From: Matthias Häker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: spamassassin-users users@spamassassin.apache.org Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: Re: is lock needed when using spamd/c combo John D. Hardin schrieb: On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wrote: DROPPRIVS=yes :0fw * 512000 | /usr/bin/spamc :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes $HOME/mail/spam SPAM='spam' :0fw: $SPAM$LOGNAME.lock this will scan only one message for one user at a time. Matthias Hi i thought the reason for using spamd/spamc was to provide a more efficient processing of spam thru spamassassin. does locking each mail coming in not increase the overhead? Mark
Re: is lock needed when using spamd/c combo
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wrote: From: Matthias Häker [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPAM='spam' :0fw: $SPAM$LOGNAME.lock this will scan only one message for one user at a time. i thought the reason for using spamd/spamc was to provide a more efficient processing of spam thru spamassassin. does locking each mail coming in not increase the overhead? No, locking the spamc rule means SA will be scanning only one message at a time (either globally or per-user, depending on how you create the lock), thus it *reduces* the overhead. Locking the spamc/spamassassin rule is a resource-usage-control method similar to limiting the number of child processes you allow spamd to spawn. I do this on my virtual-hosted MTA as it is very memory-limited. If you have a well-provisioned MTA box, then don't lock the spamc rule. Let SA scan as many messages as the resources allow, and control resource usage through the SA maximum-child-process limit. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Pelley: Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon? Ahmadeinejad: CIA! Secret prison in Europe! Abu Ghraib! -- Mahmoud Ahmadeinejad clumsily dodges a question (60 minutes interview, 9/20/2007) --- 236 days until the Mars Phoenix lander arrives at Mars
is lock needed when using spamd/c combo
Hi 3.2.3 SA on FC3 just need to ensure i have the master .procmailrc syntax correct for spamc i am using DROPPRIVS=yes :0fw * 512000 | /usr/bin/spamc :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes $HOME/mail/spam do i need to use the lock as per the procmail.example which uses :0fw: spamassassin.lock * 512000 | spamassassin Mark
Re: is lock needed when using spamd/c combo
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wrote: DROPPRIVS=yes :0fw * 512000 | /usr/bin/spamc :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes $HOME/mail/spam That looks okay. There's a more complex example at http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam that you might want to look at. do i need to use the lock as per the procmail.example which uses :0fw: spamassassin.lock * 512000 | spamassassin You only need to lock around the spamc call if you explicitly want to scan only one message at a time. If you don't have low-resource issues on the SA box, you probably don't need to do that. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Pelley: Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon? Ahmadeinejad: CIA! Secret prison in Europe! Abu Ghraib! -- Mahmoud Ahmadeinejad clumsily dodges a question (60 minutes interview, 9/20/2007) --- 237 days until the Mars Phoenix lander arrives at Mars
Re: is lock needed when using spamd/c combo
John D. Hardin schrieb: On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wrote: DROPPRIVS=yes :0fw * 512000 | /usr/bin/spamc :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes $HOME/mail/spam SPAM='spam' :0fw: $SPAM$LOGNAME.lock this will scan only one message for one user at a time. Matthias
