On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:32:11PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> I would have expected spamassassin -r to at least take a lot of shortcuts
> in processing configfiles.. i.e. once you realize the line is a "body"
> statement, you could skip to the next line without doing anything else.
Yeah, you w
At 09:21 PM 8/18/2003 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:08:34PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Um, the reduction of overhead caused by using spamd is that the ruleset is
> already parsed...
Actually it's that and to avoid the overhead of all the perl mode
compiles, etc.
> spama
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:08:34PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Um, the reduction of overhead caused by using spamd is that the ruleset is
> already parsed...
Actually it's that and to avoid the overhead of all the perl mode
compiles, etc.
> spamassassin -r doesn't (or at least doesn't need to)
At 06:11 PM 8/18/2003 -0700, Jefferson Cowart wrote:
Oh. I was under the impression that most of the overhead that spamd
reduces is the need to load another instance of perl and the associated
startup. Thanks.
That is some of the overhead, but that's not really significant compared to
the time par
TECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 18:09
> To: Jefferson Cowart; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Using spamd to report spam
>
>
> At 04:24 PM 8/18/2003 -0700, Jefferson Cowart wrote:
> >Is there a way you can take advantage of the loweroverhead of
> >spam
At 04:24 PM 8/18/2003 -0700, Jefferson Cowart wrote:
Is there a way you can take advantage of the loweroverhead of
spamd/spamc to report spam as opposed to having to use spamassassin -r?
Um, the reduction of overhead caused by using spamd is that the ruleset is
already parsed...
spamassassin -r d
