Axel aghi Hollanda wrote: > I used to have SA attached to MailScanner 'til very little time ago.
> And SA is not easy to deal as dspam does. Using words from a person
> from dspam's list:
> "Only with dspam you wouldn't get the terrible SA overhead, plus that
> the maintenance
> of the two doesn't bear comparison."
Hi Axel
TBH, not familiar with dspam, but we are using SA 3.x in a fairly
similar scenario to what you described - SA settings are stored in MySQL
per mailbox (we have approx. 2 million mailboxes).
We do per message scanning via SA, including SURBL checks (zones are
transfered to our local DNS). Per message scan time is around 1 to 2
seconds on average (it used to be effectively 0 seconds without SURBL,
but it's so useful it's worth the extra hit).
We accept and process around 5 million per day (and reject around 10
million at RCPT time) - so SA is not that bad really .I did notice a
small improvement in performance when moving from 2.63 to 3.0.2.
Hardware is also useful - the more the better ;)
Anyway, that doesn't help with your dspam performance issues - but I
thought you may be interested that SA can be used in a relatively
high-volume environment. It's also quite straightforward to maintain, so
I wouldn't judge dspam's ease of maintenance as a significant benefit
(of course, this is all dependent on how many bells and whistles you
elect to switch on... :)).
