>>>> an MTA (which is surely where it belongs--let the MTA do the network
>>>> traffic and add an "X-Razor-Warning" header once per message,
>>> If you need this then why wait for The Aggregator? Use something
>>> that already exists. Maybe I'm missing your point but I do something
>>> very similar With postfix via a content_filter. With sendmail it is
>>> called a milter.
>> milters etc are designed to be lightweight. Invoking perl for every
>> incoming message is not something I'd call lightweight!
>>
>> Maybe I'm mistaken, and someone has daemonised razor while I wasn't
>> looking--but then that would I presume be called the Aggregator.
> SpamAssassin effectively daemonizes razor if you use spamc/spamd --
> Razor is pre-loaded along with all the other bits of perl which SA
> uses, and then at runtime the only thing fork/exec'd is a lightweight C
> process. If you run one of the spamc-like milters, it doesn't even
> need to do that step...
And MIMEDefang does something similar using a multiplexor; in fact,
when the number of slaves is stable, no processes are fork/exec'd for
each message. I have:
sendmail
-> (via socket) mimedefang's milter
-> (via socket) mimedefang-multiplexor
-> mimedefang slave, where a new one is spawned only if there
isn't already a non-busy one available. This perl program
uses SpamAssassin's modules, which in turn uses Razor2's
modules.
Anne.
--
Ms. Anne Bennett, Senior Analyst, IITS, Concordia University, Montreal H3G 1M8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 514 848-7606
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Razor-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
