[Mimedefang] Greylisting Code on Wiki

Steffen Kaiser skmimedefang at smail.inf.fh-bonn-rhein-sieg.de
Thu Dec 13 03:26:21 EST 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> Anyone else using spamc and have any information to report?  Since I use 
> spamc/spamd on the same box, this seems like a no-brainer to implement but 
> perhaps someone has a field-tested warning?

I do not use spamc, but an adoption of SpamAssassin::Client.pm

Post of mine from 12 Nov 2007 "Re: [Mimedefang] MIMEdefang and 
Spamd/Spamc"

In my experience it has no advantage over the MIMEDefang integrated 
varaint out-of-the-box. You can easier implement user-specific scanning, 
but SPAMD forks each time a request is made and there is almost no 
resource sharing according the child's smaps statistics. Maybe I misread 
the info. Then the user-config is loaded each time. I find the latency 
quite heavy, therefore I pre-fork 5 children.

I was planning to try to see what's the difference, if you do not specify 
an user, but had no time to re-configure and test til now.

Bye,

- -- 
Steffen Kaiser
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBR2Dsr+gJIbZtwg6XAQLiEQgApPaLYIC2uNdORnkjfQS5UFPReiCi5+p9
iT7nNOcCcyphgRWIU9wUtEj5ZRT+Z0penNW1v1ejcir8FnOD7l9+NhbWHrT62dC6
j1ymctBPdeDMDYzj/E72yHBw5yGz0Rbvv9TtqfU6cLKzg23+amtbAckIqds1IOmr
1iQH1TXFJTWrIBrESAzegj/PGj1bGs/DKeG0Vl31HDFmwPzNi3c17KNB8kCx9DCN
UZ1MjQCbg+Bj3fUyv4yqYjLd8kMeMlMmGaTQ033lQfuT0aFcUbse87VY7AoShF8r
hpKb+iDgWAVcj1qXJozJW6E0v2+ibMjidbXEv+SAXJdbXAza3LBP5Q==
=OdWg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the MIMEDefang mailing list