Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-16 Thread Gnanam
Thank you all experts for your valuable ideas/opinions on this topic. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29189632.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Daniel Lemke
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 07:02 -0700, Daniel Lemke wrote: >> > Thanks for making me understand this important and critical difference. >> > But why then spamassassin script should exist - just for my >> understanding? >> >> Like already mentioned, Spamd needs a lo

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 07:02 -0700, Daniel Lemke wrote: > > Thanks for making me understand this important and critical difference. > > But why then spamassassin script should exist - just for my understanding? > > Like already mentioned, Spamd needs a lot of memory and runs as a Daemon, > therefo

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 06:40 -0700, Gnanam wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > No stability concerns with either. > > > > However, with anything other than a trivial load, do not use the plain > > spamassassin script, but the spamd daemon with the light-weight spamc > > client. The daemon is mu

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Daniel Lemke
Gnanam wrote: > > > Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote: >> >> No stability concerns with either. >> >> However, with anything other than a trivial load, do not use the plain >> spamassassin script, but the spamd daemon with the light-weight spamc >> client. The daemon is much faster and consumes les

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Gnanam
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote: > > No stability concerns with either. > > However, with anything other than a trivial load, do not use the plain > spamassassin script, but the spamd daemon with the light-weight spamc > client. The daemon is much faster and consumes less resources, because > SA do

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Jari Fredriksson
On 15.7.2010 16:09, Gnanam wrote: > > Where do I limit/configure the number of child processes that spamd can run? > Can you provide me documentation link for the same? > Can you share with me the normal limit imposed by a typical MTA? > It depends. If you are using *nix it is dependent on the

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 06:09 -0700, Gnanam wrote: > Martin Gregorie wrote: > > Its reliable enough, but concurrency will be limited by the number of > > child processes you allow spamd to run - on normal MTAs this limit is in > > single or low double figures. To allow 'hundreds' of simultaneous test

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Gnanam
Martin Gregorie-2 wrote: > > Its reliable enough, but concurrency will be limited by the number of > child processes you allow spamd to run - on normal MTAs this limit is in > single or low double figures. To allow 'hundreds' of simultaneous tests > you'd have to launch a copy of spamassassin as

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Emin Akbulut
Ops sorry, I use Gmail, it stacks messages well but when I hit the Reply the message will send only the last person on thread. I have to modify To: field : ) On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Gnanam wrote: > > I'm posting a reply which I received from "Emin Akbulut" here: > >

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Gnanam
I'm posting a reply which I received from "Emin Akbulut" here: Testing "hundreds of different email messages at the same time" is a bit excessive; ram usage, harddisk I/O bottleneck, etc... In my case if threads are more than 16 then server may become non-responsive because of virtual memory is

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Emin Akbulut
Testing "hundreds of different email messages at the same time" is a bit excessive; ram usage, harddisk I/O bottleneck, etc... In my case if threads are more than 16 then server may become non-responsive because of virtual memory is too high. SA is not a cpu hunger application but it uses quite hig

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 04:31 -0700, Gnanam wrote: > > I want to integrate SpamAssassin in my web-based application to test spam > > score of the "email content" that our application User's wish to send in > > mail composing page itself - even before sending. > As I'm integrating SpamAssassin comman

Re: Stability of spamassassin command-line tool

2010-07-15 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 04:31 -0700, Gnanam wrote: > As I'm integrating SpamAssassin command-line tool in our web-based > application to test spam score of the email message, hundreds of application > Users may perform spam score test at the same time. > I'd say suck it and see initially, with your