From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 24 14:24:22 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A905616A407 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:24:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91.asp.att.net [204.127.203.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B7613C45D for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:24:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from [10.0.0.4] (12-216-254-44.client.mchsi.com[12.216.254.44]) by sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91) with ESMTP id <20070124141310m9100nr75he>; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:13:11 +0000 Message-ID: <45B76976.4070408@math.missouri.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:13:10 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20070119 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Forrest Aldrich References: <45B6DA5A.9080704@forrie.com> In-Reply-To: <45B6DA5A.9080704@forrie.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SpamAssassin (spamd) eating a lot of CPU.... X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:24:22 -0000 Forrest Aldrich wrote: > Since a recent update of Spamassassin to: > > PORTVERSION= 3.1.7 > PORTREVISION= 3 > > I've noticed that each email that gets scanned causes the process to eat > up 80+% of the CPU time, and it's slow... > > I'm not really sure what changed. > > Likewise, when I start it up for the first time, I see: > > [ top output ] > 49106 root 1 106 0 290M 267M RUN 0 0:17 *98.52%* > perl5.8.8 > > I have a Dell system here, and it cranks up the fan every time a message > comes in now, with the recent spamd. > > Curious if anyone else has had these issues, etc. > > The system is not otherwise active, so I'm certain it's not a resource > issue (or constraint thereof). > > > Thanks. We had this issue. But we assumed that it was an increase in spam on the internet (perhaps recent MS worms).