Okay did some more testing: both mails, same ruleset but this time using -L to disable network checks. Scantime on 4.0.2 is down
Mail A (looot of URI) from 2.5min to 19s Mail B (funny html) from 1min to 6s on 4.0.1 both mails do not show much different timings between with -L and without Cheers tobi On Wed, 2025-09-03 at 09:56 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > On 9/3/25 9:04 AM, Tobi wrote: > > Hello list > > > > since beginning of this week we use the new spamassassin 4.0.2 > > Since > > then we can see that processing time (at least for particular > > mails) > > massively increased. We use a timeout of 30s in our setup to > > communicate with SA. > > > > Two mails we now have that cannot be processed anymore in that time > > and > > therefore get stuck in our processing. > > > > Mail A has a huge load of links/mailtos in header and body. About > > 7k. > > The timing in processing with the very same rules is from 6s (in > > 4.0.1) > > to 2.5min (in 4.0.2). I counted the number of URI spamassassin > > detected > > and the number of DNS queries in both versions and they are more or > > less equal. So I guess the increase in processing time is not DNS > > related. > > > > Mail B does not have that many URI but a quite complex HTML > > attachment > > with a load of styles with almost every div and span tag. The > > processing time is 4s (in 4.0.1) and about 1min (in 4.0.2). > > > > I will check in our timings logs to see if we see a general > > increase in > > timings or if it's more only related to specific mails. > > > > Have a good one > > > Hi, > one commit that can degrade performance is this commit > https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/commit/4a6643c72fe5cd6296b2e67eb0ccc368a4987caa > This tries to find CNAMEs for all hosts found in the email. > From my tests this can slow down email processing a bit but not that > much. > Could you send me those emails in private ? > Thanks > Giovanni
