Re: What is that rbl Eric?

["Danny Sauer" <cloudmaster@cloudmaster.com>]

Gary said:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:13:03AM -0400 or thereabouts, Danny Sauer
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at my most current mail logs (June 1 - now (June 12)), my
>> postfix rules have rejected 20868 messages at the SMTP level, and
>> spamassassin has identified 830 spams.  Spamassassin only runs for 4
>> users, though, while there are quite a few other addresses that aren't
>>  getting scanned.  37580 messages were locally delivered, 44477
>> messages  were delivered in total (not counting messages originating
>> locally).  Nearly half of the mail we get is spam.  Sigh. :)
>
> Cool, interesting stats Danny... it amazes me that close to 50% is spam
> junk. Thanks for the info.

That really annoyed me, personally.  Since our business is pretty much
entirely the creation of web pages, though, we have a lot of people whose
email addreses are all over the web - so we probably get a little more
spam than the average business.

> and since I don't do business with
> them, I too have kr, but also cn, tw, hk, cz, all blocked or denied at
> the SMTP level.

That's the bummer for us - we have to keep several of those southeast
Asian countries since one of our projects does deal with them.

> As mentioned, SA is cool, and 2.5 is really good with the bays.. one of
> my mail servers is a 486, so SA is just too intensive for the system, on
> the server, hence my approach.

Have you looked into using spamc with the spamd running on a different
host?  My mailserver at home is a 486 (well, an AMD 486 DX4 100 OC'd to
133, but still a 486).  I run spamd on the file server, which is a dual
celeron box.    The 15-min load average on it's at 1% right now, with an
average of 355 messages/day being delivered.  Running the whole SA system
on the mailhost itself slowed things down a little more than I'd like, but
this works out pretty well.  Granted, it uses more internal bandwidth to
send the message over to the spamd server and then back, but 100Mb
switched can pretty easily keep up with stuff coming in over the much
slower T1. :)  If processor time is the only reason not to run it, the
client-server thing might work for you (and if the server fails for some
reason, delivery happens normally - which I found out last week after a
power failure and one bad UPS let the spamd machine stop while the mail
server kept running).

--Danny, who should really write a script to keep those stats instead of
having to do big command line grep's every time he needs them ;)



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.