From: "Vicki Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 13:36 -0600 03/19/2005, Michael Parker wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:24:43AM -0800, Vicki Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> Why can't spamd re-read the system rules file if it's been changed?
That's
> >> not difficult to test for (quickly). I'll take an option to do this
> >>PLEASE.
> >
> >You might enjoy that, but the performance hit it would cause would not
> >be liked by everyone else.
>
> a) I don't think there'd be that much of a performance hit if it first
> checked to see if the file had changed and only read the rule set iff the
> file had changed
>
> b) that's precisely why I said "I'll take an option to do this"
> because that way _no one else would be affected_ unless they were someone
> like me who thought reading the changes was more important than half a
> microsecond.
There is a substantial hit, Vicki, on the order of a factor of two on
my machines.
You can accomplish the same thing you seem to want by changing your
call to spamc into a call to spamassassin itself. You can simulate
exactly what you want by changing to one child and the child runs
once, I think.
Since at this time I am the only person using the 3.02 SpamAssassin
(Loren insists on 2.63 for some of its reporting capabilities) I
simply put my personal rules into the /etc/mail/spamassassin directory
and restart spamassassin after I run "spamassassin --lint" on changes.
It's gotten to be automatic.
{^_^}
