Michael,
I apologize for the perceived or real hostility....People have told me of that implementation before, which that implemenation is perfectly fine with me. More power to them, best wishes, and all the best. Let's put some added value into NetMail which I think is a great product and help some people out. But, it always seems (perhaps falsely) to come in the context of "why are you wasting your time?" Actually, my hope is that I can help SpamAssassin and any other implementations including the one you've identified as much as I possibly can. It's only going to help me and many others in the end.
Again, I apologize Michael, but I do hope you understand that from my perspective, what I've done is not a waste of time.
Sincerely,
Joe
Michael Parker wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 01:16:39AM -0500, Joe Flowers wrote:
I know of that implemenation. And, I'm sure there are pluses and minus to both implementations.
I've already tested my replacement spamd on SA 3.02 and it works the same with no problems found.
I know there are a deprecated call or two (get_hits for example) but I see no reason that the new calls won't work fine.
I bet my tiny little C program is a lot faster than the spamd implementation with a fraction of the resource consumption and problems.
Also, a very significant part of my server-side load is not being shouldered by the already heavily burdened NMAP NetMail Agent.
Do as you wish, but I would bet my ragged little implementation is built on a potentially much much faster and much more scalable and much more generic (say many more options) foundation.
i.e., I fear not.
Wow, not sure where the hostility came from. I'm sure your code is much better than anything existing. I was just providing a pointer to one Netmail implementation. I myself didn't know about it til today, so just spreading the love.
Michael
