On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:43:30AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:12:47PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
It seems to me that could improve performance (a little bit) - a whole
bunch of I/O could be skipped...
It's the whole message. Most of the time spamc gets data
Jason Haar wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:43:30AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:12:47PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
It seems to me that could improve performance (a little bit) - a whole
bunch of I/O could be skipped...
It's the whole message. Most of the time spamc
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:10:04PM -0500, Dave Goodrich wrote:
What about those of us using spamd on another host? I would have to then
access a file on a shared (NFS) volume. I can't believe that the IO of
NFS would perform better than piping the message. But, I am just getting
my teeth
Hi there
I was wondering if spamd in Unix socket mode is still piped the whole
message by spamc - or if it just passes the filename, and then spamd opens
that/etc.
It seems to me that could improve performance (a little bit) - a whole
bunch of I/O could be skipped...
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:12:47PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
It seems to me that could improve performance (a little bit) - a whole
bunch of I/O could be skipped...
It's the whole message. Most of the time spamc gets data from STDIN, so
there's no filename to pass. That also means no dealing
