Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

list...@tutanota.com: > 23. May 2016 18:48 by njo...@megan.vbhcs.org: > > > Yes, exactly right idea, but your expressions could use some improvement > > Thanks it helped! > > >IF /^(To|From|Cc|Reply-To): / Why not: /^(To|From|Cc|Reply-To): *(addr1|addr2|addr3)/ > Is the space between ":

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

23. May 2016 18:48 by njo...@megan.vbhcs.org: > Yes, exactly right idea, but your expressions could use some improvement Thanks it helped! >IF /^(To|From|Cc|Reply-To): / Is the space between ": /" always needed? I think yes.  

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

On 5/23/2016 5:55 PM, list...@tutanota.com wrote: > I noticed this email today about IF ... ENDIF. > > I didnt know about it yet so I have been reading and looking at > examples. > > I can understand some but not all yet. The examples with matching > on just an IP or CIDR are easy to see. > >

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

I noticed this email today about IF ... ENDIF. I didnt know about it yet so I have been reading and looking at examples. I can understand some but not all yet.  The examples with matching on just an IP or CIDR are easy to see. But can IF ... ENDIF in Postfix be used to make this .pcre

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

Viktor Dukhovni: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:24:26PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > I can do a little better than thats, and also give a number for the > > per-query overhead. With this i5-650 CPU @3.2GHZ, it takes 0.92 > > seconds to parse 1 million IPv4 patterns, and less than about 0.01 >

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:24:26PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > I can do a little better than thats, and also give a number for the > per-query overhead. With this i5-650 CPU @3.2GHZ, it takes 0.92 > seconds to parse 1 million IPv4 patterns, and less than about 0.01 > second to search through

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

Wietse Venema: > To measure [cidr map] initialization overhead, look at the difference between > > $ time postmap -q /dev/null static:foo > $ time postmap -q /dev/null pcre:yourfile > > You will probably have to run this several times to get a meaningful > result. The /dev/null can be

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

> On May 20, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Noel Jones wrote: > > The cidr: map is quite efficient. > > IIRC the last time someone performance tested the cidr: map type, > performance stayed high even with 10's of thousands of entries. (or > was it 100's of thousands?? whatever...

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

Brandon Applegate: > In any case - I've been wondering about the potential performance > impact related to the size of the cidr_client_checks file. I > currently have ~ 600 networks listed there. I haven't noticed > anything yet - but would like to know if there's a size where I > should worry.

Re: check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

On 5/20/2016 11:20 AM, Brandon Applegate wrote: > Hello all, > > In my cascade of smtpd restrictions, along with RBL, rDNS etc - I have: > > check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/cidr_client_checks > > I mainly (manually) throw egregious offenders in there that haven’t been > added to one of

check_client_access cidr - Performance concerns ?

Hello all, In my cascade of smtpd restrictions, along with RBL, rDNS etc - I have: check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/cidr_client_checks I mainly (manually) throw egregious offenders in there that haven’t been added to one of the RBLs yet. In any case - I’ve been wondering about the

Performance Concerns

that there were some discussion on the performance of harddisk, but regarding to my assumption above, I think hard disk performance may not be the biggest factor, is that true? Best, Jacky -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-Concerns-tp22698113p22698113.html Sent from

Re: Performance Concerns

Jacky Chan wrote: Hi all, I am setup Postfix 2.5 to run on Linux box with 2 x 1.2 G PIII and 1280MB RAM server. I also setup a list of firewall rules (iptables) for restricting port 25 access. In compare of own access table in Postfix, which way has better performance when the server is

Re: Performance Concerns

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:30:26AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote: Jacky Chan wrote: Hi all, I am setup Postfix 2.5 to run on Linux box with 2 x 1.2 G PIII and 1280MB RAM server. I also setup a list of firewall rules (iptables) for restricting port 25 access. In compare of own access table in