Skaag Argonius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 :-)
I don't think anyone was suggesting that Mail::SpamAssassin is lighter. The idea is to have spamd running and have the plugin communicate with it, as in the spamassassin plugin that's in cvs (and the various patches that have been posted to this list). The plugin acts as a client to spamd, without involving spamc. -- Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Washington, DC
