On 11/03/2008 4:00 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> I have discovered a mistake in my exim configuration that caused exim
> to hand over all sizes to spamassassin. This was the same on the old
> and new servers, but apparently attributed greatly towards timeouts on
> the new server. Correcting that mist
I have discovered a mistake in my exim configuration that caused exim
to hand over all sizes to spamassassin. This was the same on the old
and new servers, but apparently attributed greatly towards timeouts on
the new server. Correcting that mistake to make exim only hand
messages smaller than 1
On 10/03/2008 6:36 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:24AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>> Try to roughly compare the actual amount of CPU time that the spamd
>> children are using on each server. 3.2 will use more resources than
>
> How do I do that? Just watching 'top'
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:24AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Try to roughly compare the actual amount of CPU time that the spamd
> children are using on each server. 3.2 will use more resources than
How do I do that? Just watching 'top' is not a reliable method I
suspect.
> Are the tim
On 10/03/2008 4:46 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> Hello Daryl,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 02:23:13PM -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>> On 05/03/2008 5:44 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:44:02PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
On a new mailserver wit
Hello Daryl,
Thanks for your reply.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 02:23:13PM -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 05/03/2008 5:44 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:44:02PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> >> On a new mailserver with 8Gb ram and 2xdual-core CPU's we get regular
> >> me
