[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Spam in the lists out of control

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:21:15PM +0200, Michelle Konzack scribbled:
> Am 2004-05-11 14:11:06, schrieb Marek Habersack:
> >On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:49:47AM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo scribbled:
> >[snip]
> >> It's not so easy. In fact checking GPG signatures when fetchmail
> >> downloads mails will kill my machine. 
> >You don't have to do it when fetchmail is fetching them, I suppose. It could
> >as well be done in your MUA, I think.
> I think, he was meaning, if he fetch the mail and check it for example 
> from the ~/.procmailrc gpg eats up all resources !!!
Yes, that's what he meant. What I meant, OTOH, was that the check can be
done by the MUA when it is visiting the mailbox/maildir - that is, on

> I have done this tooo on a PII/233 with 128 MByte memory...
> But additional 'spamassassin' (bayesian) and 'f-prot'  ;-)
My condolences :)

> They need for a 512kBit ADSL an PII/500 with 256 MByte minimum
> if I get around 200 Messages in one time. Now I check the 176 
> Mailboxex continously ! and it works quiet well, but if I have 
> a Line-Drop for some hours... I run in trouble !
Most of the checking should/would be done on the server (Bayesian filtering
etc.), but your MUA could check the GPG/PGP sigs when you visit the folder
on your local machine. That would take off a lot of load, since the server
can do it more effectively (the mails aren't incoming all at the same time).

> >> Right now after night I have to download about 200 mails. Bayesian
> >> filtering + procmail takes my machine about 10-15 minutes to sort out
> >> this. With GPG signatures I will have to get up one hour earlier ;)
> >May I ask why aren't you filtering on your server?
> I have a dedicated $HOME Server which run 24/7 with nfs-user-server, 
> samba, netatalk, apache, proftpd, ssh, courier-(imap,mta,webadmin)
Is the server the MX for your domain(s)?

> Maybe a little bit to much for a PII/233 with 128 MBytes
Hrm, I would say so :)

> But it works generaly very fine... No problems with my 5 Workststions.
that's good

> >> Yes but there are less or more complicated filtering solutions. 
> >> Sure I can write very complicated rules for procmail + bogofilter
> >> + spamassasin + gnupg checks + <put whatever you want>, but hey... every
> >> check needs CPU power and harddrive access.
> >You got that right, the programs you listed above can take all of your CPU,
> >indeed :) But how about integrating PGP/GPG checking (not necessarily with
> >gnupg) inside the spam filter? And rather not one written in Perl?
> Hmmm, i get per day between 3000 and 3500 Messages on my FileServer 
> with around 100 $USER and 176 Mailaccounts (fetched) 
That's not much.

> Now I cycle the fetching central from the first E-Mail to the last 
> and then it begins new...
> Which mean, that I get all 30 seconds a message !!!
> This works very fine with 
> fetchmail -> procmail -> spamassassin (bayesian) -> f-prot -> gpg
> The load on my FileServer is around 0.8 to 3.5
I think it would be more efficient if you did

fetchmail -> MTA -[filter]> amavis[spamassassin] -> LDA[gpg]

(replace amavis/spamassassin with something else, if you like, of course)

You would save on invoking spamassassin from procmail for each mail as it
would run as a daemon. Also, arguably, maildrop might be faster than
procmail (then again, if you do A/V and spam protection in the MTA filter
chain you might get away totally without procmail/maildrop)

> >> That looks interesting. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
> >I can certify it works well - my boss is subscribed to as many mailing lists
> >as I am, and yet he receives 1 (_one_) spam/week on average.
> 'spamassassin' find all SPAM's too.
Well, I would be cautious with that 'all'...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: