Tofu (was: Spamassassin (was Re: off topic: quoting (was Re: html spam)))
Moin,
* Stelios Bounanos <sb@dial.pipex.com> [02-05-10 22:29]:
> >>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2002 08:53:29 -0700, Christian G Warden
> >>>>> <cwarden@xerus.org> was runoured to have said:
>
> > On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 01:04:40PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote:
> >> Christian G. Warden <cwarden@xerus.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> (Could you please post your reply *below* the quoted text? Top-posting
> >> is quite irritating, IMHO)
> >>
> >> > i just want to add a warning about spamassassin. i had it setup for
> >> > about a week and it was very good at catching spam, but occasionally it
> >> > would drive the cpu load into the 20s.
> >>
> >> Yes, I can say this, as well. My computer swapped twice (so much, that I
> >> had to hit MSysRq and boot) because of SA started to investigate pretty
> >> big binary mails. Although, "fixing" the problem is pretty easy; just
> >> add 'required_hits = x' in ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, where 'x' is
> >> maybe 5 or something else. This makes SA to stop processing mails
> >> further than hits you just specified.
>
> > i tend to prefer top-posting except when responding point by point
> > between paragraphs. admittedly, it's lazy and encourages excessive
> > quoting, but this just feels awkward. i'll try it out for a few days.
> > maybe it'll grow on me.
> > thanks for the required_hits tip. next time i try SA, i'll read through
> > the docs more thoroughly.
>
>You can also run SA in a "client-server" mode. Basically your procmail
>recipe uses spamc to connect to a spamd daemon that does the checking.
>There's a discussion in the SA docs on why this more efficient; it
>solved the high system load problem for me...
I agree. I even made up a small page so that I just can refer to it
instead of explaining the problem every time.
Thorsten
--
Guns don't protect freedom, people protect freedom.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: