On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:44:20 -0000 Kevin Golding wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35:08 -0000, David Gessel > <ges...@blackrosetech.com> wrote: > > > 1) sa-learn seems really, really slow. Slow enough that spam > > sometimes comes in faster. This seems far slower than the > > benchmark results suggest is within the range of normal. I'm sure > > I'm doing something really wrong, but not sure what. > > sa-learn is more suited to individual or small batches of messages. > You'll get significantly improved performance using spamc -L spam (or > ham, or forget).
Aside from the fact that the OP is not using spamd, it's the the other way around. sa-learn is inefficient for training emails one at a time because of the overhead of repeating the initialization, but it is efficient if you run it on a large mailbox.
