David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This might be a good idea. I wouldn't fork/exec spamc, but rather implement
> the SA client-server protocol directly in Perl (I don't think it's
> all that complex.) Now that spamd has a preforked model, it
> might work quite well.
A rewrite of spamc in perl... I like it :)
Maybe a perl rewrite of clamdscan as well? Here's a haiku...
MIMEDefang dot sock
spamd and clamd dot sock
Manage their own threads
>> It would interest me to see some real-world statistics on what
>> percentage of the time a given MIMEDefang slave spends in:
>
> I have statistics for CanIt, and I can tell you that over 90% of the average
> slave's busy time is spent inside SpamAssassin (or in our case, doing
> DB queries.) This is pretty consistent over hundreds of customers.
Ahhh... so it's moot in the real world.
I wonder if it might pay off during a virus storm though. Without the SpamAssassin
overhead, MX_MAXIMUM could be set nice and high... message_contains_virus() to beat
back the storm. On the otherhand, with MX_MAXIMUM stuck at (RAM / size of
SpamAssassin), a virus storm might slow the server down enough to hold up legitimate
mail.
spamd would have to be limited to a certain number of threads, of course... and the
interplay of (maximum spamd threads vs. MIMEDefang threads) could get complicated.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
_______________________________________________
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
