Oh. I was under the impression that most of the overhead that spamd reduces is the need to load another instance of perl and the associated startup. Thanks.
---------------- Thanks Jefferson Cowart [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 18:09 > To: Jefferson Cowart; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Using spamd to report spam > > > At 04:24 PM 8/18/2003 -0700, Jefferson Cowart wrote: > >Is there a way you can take advantage of the loweroverhead of > >spamd/spamc to report spam as opposed to having to use > spamassassin -r? > > Um, the reduction of overhead caused by using spamd is that > the ruleset is > already parsed... > > spamassassin -r doesn't (or at least doesn't need to) parse > the ruleset, so > it's already got that benefit built in. > > I don't really see what sensible overhead benefits could be > gained from > spamd that couldn't be gained in plain spamassassin -r with sensible > coding, and as best I can tell from the debug output, > spamassassin -rD > already skips parsing most of the configs. > ------------------------------------------------------- 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
