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.
eh, that came out wrong. :)
>
> Nitpicking. You meant "spamassassin" there (as in the script's name).
> SpamAssassin is much more, includes the daemon, and we do *not* have it
> just for "a few mails per day". ;)
>
Errm, sorry for that :P
--
View this mes
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
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
nd for this, we've got
SpamAssassin).
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29173345.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ent they wish to send. Hence, it's just a spam score
test purely on the email content from the sender's point of view. Hope this
makes things clear.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29173062.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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
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
n that requires fairly significant
> resources (memory and cpu) to process each submitted message.
If you were in my place, what would you recommend me to check with incase of
SA installation?
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-too
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:
>
>
ause of virtual memory is too high.
SA is not a cpu hunger application but it uses
quite high memory, especially spamassassin.exe (50 MB avg. per session)
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29172566.html
Sent from
spamassassin" or "spamc" be
>> stable/reliable enough to test hundreds of different email messages at the
>> same time?
>>
>> Experts ideas/advice/opinions/comments are appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gnanam
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29171831.html
>> Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
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
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
s: Will the command-line tool "spamassassin" or "spamc" be
stable/reliable enough to test hundreds of different email messages at the
same time?
Experts ideas/advice/opinions/comments are appreciated.
Regards,
Gnanam
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Stabil
15 matches
Mail list logo
