On 2006-08-09, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
> It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
> give or take some.)
I run SA on FreeBSD on an IBM M-Pro dual PII-400 with 512MB RAM.
Sendmail, IMA
From: "Michel Vaillancourt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<>Based on the bad case I ran his
machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
come i
> <>Based on the bad case I ran his
> machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
> on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
> capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
> come in batched there will be several minutes o
From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
{^_-} Joanne, who has a bad habit if running numbers. And I note he
might be able to run two instances to get SOME benefit from
paralleling the DNS lookups.
Point conceded :-D
<> That's DEADLY in political arguments when I bother to t
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:10:59 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
>>> "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail wil
From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey all!
>
> Anyone happen to k
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
>> "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> > Hey all!
>>> >
>>> > Anyone happen to know the memory re
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey all!
>
> Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
> have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plu
James Lay wrote:
I have almost 500 megs of swap. And Postfix and SpamAssassin are the
only things running on it. Thanks!
Swap is pretty much useless for anything but programs you need running
but rarely use. You can swap out a *tiny* bit of spamd, but that's
about it if you don't want ser
James Lay wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Hey all!
> >
> > Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
> > have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
> > the SARE rules tank it?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
>
> > Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
> > have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
> > the SARE rules tank it? Or
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey all!
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
Perhaps.
Do not run anything else with a significant memory f
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
> Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
> 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
> rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
I'm running 3.1.3 with a bunch of SARE and local rules on my hosted
se
15 matches
Mail list logo
