That's true. It's much faster than running the spamassassin binary itself,
since it's a relatively light client that communicates with a daemon that
was alive anyway. But if using Mail::SpamAssassin is even lighter and maybe
even faster, why not :-)
My qpsmtpd does run under tcpserver. I heard about a new 'tcpserver' utility
called 'selectserver'... anyone knows anything about this yet?
Anyway so far, looks like the plugin is holding water. I have not received
any complaints since installing it, and it looks like it's blocking spam
nicely. Further, the extensive spamassassin report in the log, allows me to
easily check the kind of spam i'm getting; now I have an idea about the
range of points for various kinds of email, so now it's easy to adjust the
points to a more optimal state ;-)
Aric
"Robert Spier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Surely invoking an external binary is higher overhead than communicating
> > with spamd directly?
>
> The cost of executing 'spamc' is relatively cheap compared to qpsmtpd
> in tcpserver mode. spamc is pretty damn light weight, especially with
> the UNIX socket support in 2.60.
>
> -R
