On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 13:05 -0700, RobertH wrote:
> > From: Karsten Bräckelmann
> > The real impact isn't the DNS query, but whenever an update
> > has been pushed. If everyone would check once an hour, the
> > full load would have to be shouldered in 60 minutes, as
> > opposed to evenly distri
> From: Karsten Bräckelmann
> Heh, true. And he could run sa-update even more frequently.
> After all, the DNS answer is cached for an hour... ;)
>
> The real impact isn't the DNS query, but whenever an update
> has been pushed. If everyone would check once an hour, the
> full load would hav
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 18:14 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> on the other hand, the sa-update architecture can cope with it just fine. ;)
Heh, true. And he could run sa-update even more frequently. After all,
the DNS answer is cached for an hour... ;)
The real impact isn't the DNS query, but whenever
on the other hand, the sa-update architecture can cope with it just fine. ;)
2009/3/29 Karsten Bräckelmann :
>> > Isn't that a tad overkill?
>
> It is. :)
>
>> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RuleUpdates
>> >
>> > How often should I run sa-update?
>> >
>> > As often as you like. It typically
