----- Original Message ----- From: "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: ml.spamassassin-talk To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] My rules don't work.
> I was just thinking about PersistentPerl (see CPAN)... has anyone run > spamassassin under it? It would seem to eliminate many of the issues > with the startup delays for running SA if you get a burst of mail, and > you'd get the benefit of your own private instance of an SA "daemon" > which would automagically disappear after a while of no activity. If you want to run SA as daemon, run the SA daemon. :) It seems silliness to try and daemonize spamassassin, whereas spamd is right there, available to you. Well, to answer your question, A while ago I checked out pperl (like PersistentPerl), but became not overly enthusiastic by it. It does not beat spamc/spamd in speed, and nor does PersistentPerl. And how could they? The fork () call is hard to beat. :) Besides, there are quite a few pitfalls using persistent perl in general. Granted, PersistentPerl is a lot better than pperl, but the pitfalls no less deep. Like the way global variables retain their value on startup, which can yield quite unexpected results. - Mark ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
