You might want to save yourself effort in reinventing the wheel and take a look at MaliScanner 4.50.x which caches spamassassin scores (http://www.mailscanner.info).
Cheers, Phil ---- Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicolas Boullis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 16 January 2006 11:20 > To: Spamassassin Users List > Subject: Running spamassassin in two-pass > > Hi, > > I think that some part of spamassassin is highly > user-specific (such as BAYES, AWL or UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY). > But I receive some e-mails that are sent to hundreds of our > users, and I consider it is some waste of CPU-time and > bandwidth to run the same tests on the same message hundreds of times. > > So I considered running spammassassin in 2-pass: > - 1 pass on our MX server, that runs most tests, and report in some > header which tests were run and which were triggered; > - 1 pass on the server that hosts the mailboxes, that read those > headers added by the MX, runs the user-specific tests and computes > the scores, does the AWL and BAYES learning and adds the required > headers. > > What do you people think about this idea? Does it sound sane? > Would you expect much improvement over a full single pass on > the server that hosts the mailboxes? > > (As far as I am concerned, I used my very limited knowledge > of perl to try to implement this 2-pass idea, but the > improvement looks very > limited...) > > > Nicolas Boullis >
