On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 06:54:36PM -0400, Joseph Barillari wrote: > > Would spamc/spamd respond better to an inrush of mail? Or is there a > switch to flip to make procmail or sendmail process the mail serially > -- not by re-queuing it, but by using some form of locking such that > when one spamassassin terminates, another is immediately started?
Spamc/Spamd would definately respond better to an inrush of mail since it won't have to load perl and spamassassin for each message. It works great on my setup over here on a K6-2-450. If you use that in conjunction with the -m flag to spamd mentioned earlier, you shouldn't have any problems at all. -Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Got root? We do. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
