From: Hamish Marson (hamishtravellingkiwi.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 12:10:50 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Graham Hillstomer wrote:

>It's not that Amavis or Amavis-new are bad because there not, but with volumes of 150K+ messages per day, especially on public email services we have seen issues with them. You need to watch all the apps it calls for resource/memory leaks and also that something doesn't peg the CPU to unacceptable levels. What happens is that you need to develop some monitoring tools to monitor the email process tree itself to ensure that everything is doing what it is supposed to do and that your actually working and under acceptable levels.
>
>For low/medium email volumes where email is not critical Amavis-new is fine. You can tinker with it as much as you like :-)
>
>For us in what we do we need more enterprise-class antivirus services that don't need this much attention.
>
>
We pass anything up to 1million+ messages a day through our mail servers
(2x servers, so 500k each) running postfix & amavisd with uvscan (On AIX
4.3.3rml10). There are no problems with excessive resource comsumption,
except with uvscan requiring too many CPU cycles when checking outbound
mail (800k messages of 5kB each tends to saturate the CPU for a day or
more. I'm hoping sophos SAVI will doit way better & cheaper than buying
new hardware).

H

>Graham
>
>
>
>>I am not comfortable with Amavis-new and large scale scanning but that is
>>
>>
>my opinion :-)
>
>I've always used Amavisd with uvscan, and in a new server I was thinking on
>using Amavis-new
>why do you say that?
>
>is it too slow with large scale scanning?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--

I don't suffer from Insanity... | Linux User #16396
        I enjoy every minute of it... |
                                        |
http://www.travellingkiwi.com/ |

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]