On Wednesday 08 February 2006 01:33, Craig White wrote: >On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 01:10 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: >> Greetings all;
>> Does anyone here have any experience with previous versions of this >> utility? And if so, any hints to toss my way? > >---- >personally, I think you should handle your email entirely differently. > I have gathered that you use a number of computers around your house > and thus, the logical method that I see is to set one computer up - > not your primary desktop...as a mail server and have an MTA (sendmail > or postfix) and a IMAP server (dovecot or cyrus) and run fetchmail > and spamassassin on that system too. Mail would get retrieved by this > system on very frequent intervals like you are doing now, it would be > analyzed by SA and delivered to your IMAP spool or maildir or cyrus > mailstore. A good idea, if the firewall box had the cojones to do it. Its a 500mhz k6-III, and already running the firewall duties fairly fast, but adding that load to it does concern me somewhat. As it is, its job is fairly well defined and easy to maintain. My contention is that things would be improved immensely if the SA functions were removed from the threadless execution kmail does. Stuff that SA does are totally charged aganst kmails time at the cpu trough, and moving it to a background task seems like a desirable thing. Thats not saying your idea is not a good one, it is, but that now 8 year old box would need a heart tansplant to do it all I fear. >This would allow a lot more flexibility... > >You could then use any computer to read/respond to mail and with IMAP, >if you have read it/deleted it on one system, all mail clients on any >computer would likewise see the same. That would be an advantage in that I could then do email from the shop box, probably while emc is carving parts on my milling machine. As it is, I spend entirely too many hours in this chair when I could be up doing other things. I'll think about it, maybe even do it. If the box isn't up to it, thats a good excuse to upgrade it, right? :) >Computer sluggishness from things like SA would not be apparent as > they aren't occurring on your desktop system. > >Ultimately, using fetchmail or getmail or whatever mail retrieval tool >you use isn't likely to make much of a difference...segregate your >services and don't force your desktop computer to do everything. > >This really has little to do with spamassassin so I hesitate to go on. Well, SA is the main cause of the lag, so its almost germain. :) >Craig -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
