On 10/26/07 6:59 PM, "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 08:16 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>
>>> Justin Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> What else can we do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Add code to generate a lint warning any time a .cf file over 1mb is read
>>> unless a config option is set to silence it?
>>>
>>
>> But people don't read logs, or they would know... I'd suggest die-ing
>> instead.
>
> -1 on die-ing. There's no precedent for that in any of SA's existing
> behavior, even under the most severe config errors. This is largely done
> because it could screw over someones mail queue following an upgrade.
>
> And in this case, even if they read the logs, or ran a --lint, they
> wouldn't know anything other than "it's slow" and maybe "it eats memory
> like a hog". At least this way we can reach the ones that actually check
> the basics.
>
For what it's worth: I stopped using blacklist.cf back around
2.1.3..haven't seen much of a difference with or without it....one of the
companies I work with has:
File messages : from Oct 1 00:01:37 to Oct 26 19:28:48
Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 74552
Number of spams : 69518 ( 93.25%)
Number of clean messages : 5034 ( 6.75%)
Average message analysis time : 6.73 seconds
Average spam analysis time : 6.61 seconds
Average clean message analysis time : 8.29 seconds
Average message score : 21.62
Average spam score : 23.80
Average clean message score : -6.44
Total spam volume : 345 Mbytes
Total clean volume : 92 Mbytes
We are well pleased with SA without blacklist.cf :)
James
