- Previous message: Udo Rader: "Re: Another SPAM doubt"
- Maybe in reply to: Sergio Ferreira: "Another SPAM doubt"
- Next in thread: Michael Katz: "Re: Another SPAM doubt"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Victor Duchovni (no email)
Date: Thu Dec 01 2005 - 12:01:29 EST
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:53:21PM +0100, Udo Rader wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 09:14 -0500, Michael Katz wrote:
> > There are many antispam solutions for Postfix that are not Amavis
> > based. Amavis relies on SpamAssassin, one of the slowest spam analysis
>
> remember: there are no slow applications, only inappropriate hardware
> (well, most of the time ;-) Not so long ago, the sysreqs for running a
> mail server very low compared to other services, but nowadays with all
> the content filtering stuff you need really high performing machines.
>
Money can buy you bandwidth, but latency is forever (John Mashey).
More often these days you also need many separate machines, so that
the latency of various lookups can be amortized over many parallel
deliveries.
-- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: <mailto:?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users> If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
|
|
|