-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Duncan Findlay writes: > There's a big long thread on debian-devel about trying to get > SpamAssassin 3.0.0 into sarge (which is not going to happen, > FWIW). > > There's a lot of grumbling about our API change without bumping the > soname (which of course doesn't exist in perl...). People think we > should have provided backward compatibility, somehow. There's even > some absurd claims that spamassassin 3 breaks exim 4. TBH, I think we *should* have provided more backwards compatibility; there were a few cases where we could have made things a little easier for users on those counts. (For example, a "shim" NoMailAudit class that just fronts for Message, parse(), etc.) > However, among the topics discussed include a large number of > developers claiming that SpamAssassin essentially crashed their system > by using up way too much memory. jm, quinlan, I suspect you may be > interested in these reports. I've linked them below: > > Beginning of thread > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/10/msg00213.html > > Tollef Fog Heen reports some pretty hefty memory usage here: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/10/msg00242.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/10/msg00302.html > > The thread's pretty much dead, but if we could gain anything from it, > that'd be good. Might be worth getting Tollef Fog Heen to open an upstream bug so we can figure out where those insane numbers are coming from :( - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFBZsO9QTcbUG5Y7woRAlP/AJ41ptu8Eg/gb5/Q2sU2LyGfjhw2FACgx0Tz k117TB8gq0v+H1hgNbSXbZ4= =QtA5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
