On 19 Dec 2002, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > When downloading a lot of mail at once, it might make sense to use a > local instance of spamd/spamc instead of the spamassassin script. That > will probably get you a nice speed-up, even with the procmail problem.
This brings me to a newbie question. If we're running spamd, is there any need to even have the spamassassin script? All the man pages seem to indicate that spamc is a drop-in replacement for the script if you're running spamd. I just want to make sure before I do something like chmod 0 spamassassin. There's also a binary in the bin directory simply called "spam" It looks like it was built a day after spamc, spamd and spamassassin. Is this a dependancy, part of the distribution or neither? TIA, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am ========================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Order your Holiday Geek Presents Now! Green Lasers, Hip Geek T-Shirts, Remote Control Tanks, Caffeinated Soap, MP3 Players, XBox Games, Flying Saucers, WebCams, Smart Putty. T H I N K G E E K . C O M http://www.thinkgeek.com/sf/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
