On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:39:16PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:13:09PM -0500, dman wrote:
| > Sure. And a default to off of any superfluous tests achieves this as
| > well. BTW, Duncan, are you using spamd? On my (relatively fast)
| > system I see a major difference bewteen using spamd and
| > 'spamassassin'. (most scans take 1 second or so with spamd on my box)
| >
|
| Yes. I am. I think it would take an hour after I start my computer is I
| used spamassassin -p, rather than 20 minutes :-)
Wow. I wonder what the cause is ... probably CPU due to heavy regex
usage. I wonder if it would be more efficient to iterate over
the message for each test or to run each test in parallel with just
one iteration over the message. The second would surely require more
memory to keep track of each test. Profiling is the only way to be
sure. In the current implementation, does SA stop checking a test
when it reaches the first match? That may improve the processing time
on spam messages.
-D
--
If your company is not involved in something called "ISO 9000" you
probably have no idea what it is. If your company _is_ involved in ISO
9000 then you definitely have no idea what it is.
(Scott Adams - The Dilbert principle)
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
