* Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041006 15:05]: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:32:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > Just for record, I and a few other people removed spamassassin 3 on > > > > my workstation due to performace problems. It is really a memory > > > > and cpu hog. I doubt it is usable as is on any box without > > > > a good deal of horsepower and memory. I would add at least > > > > a big warning in its NEWS file about this, until its problems will be > > > > not solved.
> > > If this is not solved, we really should consider to re-introduce > > > spamassassin 2 as spamassassin, and the version 3 as spamassassin3. > Unfortunately, it is also used as the only anti-spam plugin in other > software, such as amavis AFAIK. As pointed before anyway, releasing those > kind of tools and thinking of having them frozen for a couple of > years is a non-sense, plain and clear. The volatile archive > is having more and more sense. Sorry, but the basic problem I'm speaking about has nothing to do with volatile - but just that requiring substancially more memory might be a bad idea. We still have inn1 and inn2 parallel (and I'm a happy user of inn1), for similar reasons. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
