Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

This forum contains features that has been archived. This section contains implemented features, duplicate requests, and requests which we have decided not to implement.

ClamD Interface like the one for SpamD (network)

Yes
24
86%
No
4
14%
 
Total votes: 28

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-14 23:20

horndog wrote:AFAIK SA is the only App that doesn't require a pseudo Linux environment to be placed in Windows to work such as ASSP.
Well, ASSP could (like any Perl application) as well be compiled to a standalone .exe by using PerlApp. On the othe side, the original SpamAssassin could as well run as Perl script when a Perl environment is installed at the Win32 PC. This is also not really 'pseudo' as it's a fully working Perl environment. It's just ridiculously large and complex just for running a single application. Under Linux, Perl scripts are a essential part of the OS hence it's better supported there.
horndog wrote:Is there a native windows anti spam program that can be used with HMS to replace SA?
Short answer: No
Long answer: SA actually consists of several anti-spam programs. There is a Bayesian classifier, a regular expression interpreter, the external programs DCC and Razor2 and so on. DCC compiles fine under Win32, Razor2 has to be ported but runs also fine, there are a lot of Bayesian classifiers and regular expression interpreters which could be used but the problem is to integrate it all into hMS. I remember vaguely that I've looked at the possibilities how to implement the stuff into hMS and found that it can't be done currently because of some limitations with either the filtering, the API/vbs scripts or something like that.
horndog wrote:When I used Mercury Mail they use an anti spam program called "SPAMHALTER." Does anyone know about it?
I know about it and I also know the coder (Lukas G.) quite well. SpamHalter even includes the one or another feature which I've invented. Why do you ask?

Best regards,

Nico

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-14 23:35

horndog wrote:
tBB wrote:I know about it and I also know the coder (Lukas G.) quite well. SpamHalter even includes the one or another feature which I've invented. Why do you ask?
I would like to try it with HMS if thats possible?
No, unfortunately not. SpamHalter extensively uses the Mercury daemon API and I don't think the current hMS API would allow to port it.

Best regards,

Nico

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-15 02:50

horndog wrote:That's too bad. I don't suppose Lukas G. would consider making a version for HMS maybe using TCP/IP as a SA replacement?
This would be nearly a complete rewrite. Not only because of the TCP connection but because SpamHalter is tightly integrated into Mercury. For example the spam/ham learning needs to be handled as SpamHalter is a Bayesian classifier, SpamHalter takes the results of other Anti-Spam tests into account an so on.

Also I would not try to integrate something into hMS as some kind of replacement for something completely different. It would be cool if there would be a way to integrate third party anti-spam tools into hMS and it would assign a spamscore to the result/errorlevel of each. This way almost everything could be integrated.

Best regards,

Nico

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-15 02:57

horndog wrote:Would this option make a substantial performance improvement?
Not really. PerlApp is not bad. It walks through the application and checks what modules it needs, then it packs them along with the interpreter and the main application into a single .exe which is then unpacked to the temp directory of the system from which it is executed. If you have a whole Perl environment installed you would spare a few cpu cycles for the unpacking but I think that's the only difference.

Best regards,

Nico

Tooms
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12 23:06
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by Tooms » 2010-01-15 11:02

horndog wrote:How did you port ClamAv to Windows? Do you think You could make a better SA port than already exists using the same method? After all there hasn't been an update in ages. It appears this windows port is now abandonware.
I am sure that Nico allready has made the port the best way he can and there is not much hi can do, remember he port the app and is not making the SA, ClamAV or Perl apps.

So Horndog i think the word here is that the windows port of the app are so good they can be and if you will have more out of them then you have learn Linux and use the native apps on the platform they are made for.
Any comment or statements is my own and have no relationship to my workplace

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-15 11:03

horndog wrote:How did you port ClamAv to Windows? Do you think You could make a better SA port than already exists using the same method?
ClamAV is written in C++, SpamAssassin in Perl. That are two completely different things. Porting the latest 3.2.5 version to the Win32 environment would be certainly still possible using PerlApp. I could even do it as I bought PerlApp some years ago but honestly I am not really interested in another project as long as most people treat free software worse than free beer.
horndog wrote:After all there hasn't been an update in ages. It appears this windows port is now abandonware.
There are rumors that Eugene, the coder of SAWin32 works for Yahoo now. By the way, the original SpamAssassin also hasn't been updated since 06/2008 for whatever reason (surely not because it has no bugs) :lol:

Best regards,

Nico

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-15 16:17

horndog wrote:I guess that using the Windows port will be slow.
After thinking about it (or rather trying to remember), it is slower, but not that slow. 20 sec. is long, at least if doesn't run on the oldest hardware. I have seen SpamD taking that long on a 433 Mhz Celeron but if I remember right the processing time of the Win32 version was in the range of 5-7 seconds with the standard ruleset and a few plugins (however without OCR plugins, PDFassassin etc.) on a hardware which can be called ancient nowadays so you should really check your SA logs for something that takes unusually long.

Best regards,

Nico

Tooms
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12 23:06
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by Tooms » 2010-01-15 19:22

tBB wrote:
horndog wrote:I guess that using the Windows port will be slow.
After thinking about it (or rather trying to remember), it is slower, but not that slow. 20 sec. is long, at least if doesn't run on the oldest hardware. I have seen SpamD taking that long on a 433 Mhz Celeron but if I remember right the processing time of the Win32 version was in the range of 5-7 seconds with the standard ruleset and a few plugins (however without OCR plugins, PDFassassin etc.) on a hardware which can be called ancient nowadays so you should really check your SA logs for something that takes unusually long.

Best regards,

Nico
I have just started my test VM with win2008 and sawin32, there sawin32 i have disable the DCC and Razor2 plugins.
The VM is in VMware WS7 on my desktop pc.

I have then started 5 looping .bat files there is scanning mails with mswspamc and sawin32 and each mail is having a scan time 1-5 sec.
Any comment or statements is my own and have no relationship to my workplace

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-16 00:30

horndog wrote:•Pyzor (see UsingPyzor) tests seem to be one of the most time consuming: it may raise scanning time by more than 10 seconds per check.
•DCC (see UsingDcc) may add 3-5 seconds to testing time.
Network Tests Latency wrote:There is nothing wrong with allowing for 15 or 20 seconds per message to avoid Pyzor timeouts.
Pyzor is not that slow anymore. It was a unmaintained project for a long time without any fast servers but meanwhile it seems to be much better. DCC is very fast. It might need 2-3 seconds in case of a very large mail and a slow connection but that's seldom. Same with Razor2.

Also you won't see anything in the hMS log except the time needed (in the log you've posted SA took 24 sec. to complete). The SpamD log will tell you much more (it has to be enabled of course). Or just set

use_razor2 0
use_dcc 0
use_pyzor 0

and if SA all of a sudden only takes two seconds then one of the checks timeouts because of a wrong server address or something.

Best regards,

Nico

User avatar
tBB
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-04-17 18:10
Location: The land of Beer and Sauerkraut!
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by tBB » 2010-01-16 12:17

horndog wrote:I found some old SpamD logs before I went to SpamDLoader.
I'm sure SpamDLoader doesn't replace or disable SpamD's logs as it just loads SpamD. You seem to mix it up with the SpamC log.
horndog wrote:The times are a spot on match for the HMS logs.
I don't doubt that the times in both logs are the same but SpamD tells a LOT in it's log (or window), even more if started with the -D or --debug switch. You need to find out which test of SpamAssassin times out and only the SpamD log will tell you. See http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2 ... spamd.html
horndog wrote:I have another request although not much of a project. Would you consider porting ClamDog for SpamD or SpamDog? :lol: Everything is there already, the port pinger, The process killer, and Blat mailer. The batch file would probably be much the same.
That would be probably easy but as you appear to use Tooms's SpamDLoader tool, isn't this a watchdog for SpamD as well?

Best regards,

Nico
Last edited by tBB on 2010-01-16 15:06, edited 1 time in total.

Tooms
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12 23:06
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by Tooms » 2010-01-16 14:22

Log from HMS is only displaying the HMS side of things and as you can see it only log that it sent a mail to SA and got a response after 24 sec., this dont tell much about what SA has done and what errors there was.

Log from SpamDloader is only display a log from the internal logic of SpamDloader and what it is doing, about the check there only toke 2 sek. this is because it is a very simple test mail and there for SA is very fast on that one so you can not use this 2 sec. as it is misleading and you have to test SA with a real email from you system and see what the result then is.

Log for SpamD, you have to start SpamD from commandline with the extra commandline options or add the options to the SpamD commandline in SpamDloader GUI and in both cases SpamD will log to it own log file and this will tell alot more about what check there is hanging but as Nico says try disable some of the plugins and maybe this will show withs plugin there is slow down the process.

SpamDloader as a watchdog app there is monitoring SA all the time and if some things seems wrong then it try to fix it that is in most cases a restart of SpamD
Any comment or statements is my own and have no relationship to my workplace

User avatar
PeterK2003
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 125
Joined: 2005-07-20 17:08
Location: Catawissa, PA

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by PeterK2003 » 2010-01-18 18:57

I got it working using tooms tool and it works fine but i still think it would be nice if hmail could do it natively.

Thanks everyone for your help!

~Peter

^DooM^
Site Admin
Posts: 13862
Joined: 2005-07-29 16:18
Location: UK

Re: Interface to ClamD just like the one for SpamD

Post by ^DooM^ » 2011-10-31 16:50

Added in 5.4. Archived.
If at first you don't succeed, bomb disposal probably isn't for you! ヅ

Post Reply