Marc Sherman wrote: > Ted Cooper wrote: >> If you keep the "spam = user" verb/condition/thingy the same each time >> it is called (just keeping the user the same, you can add/remove the >> true bit), the result is cached and only calls SA once so it's no less >> efficient than any of other condition. I use it for a yes/no condition >> in my spam ACLs. > > Please reread my message that Johann was replying to: > http://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20080310.143243.4dbec324.en.html > > Caching the repeated lookups only works when Spamassassin is working. > When Spamassassin fails (such as due to a timeout), there's no result to > cache, so each invocation in the ACL re-runs it. And a message that > fails with a spamassassin timeout is exactly the worst possible time to > be rerunning it 5 times for your CPU and disk.
So I guess the answer to Johann is "yes", you can rewrite it as per the template your provided, but isn't it nice that included some extra fun knowledge - The more you know! I hadn't thought of SA failing inside Exim before. Urh. I used "There's" instead of "There are". I'm sorry I murdered the English language. So how does one detect if SA isn't working correctly and failing from inside Exim? I'm already keeping a watch out for it - If it's not running, a restart of the service is attempted and if that fails, Exim is killed and I am notified. But if SA is still running and failing inside Exim I have no way of knowing. -- The Exim Manual http://www.exim.org/docs.html http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/index.html -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
