From: "Jason R. Mastaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty concerned about it, actually. TMDA would be a lot quicker > and more reliable, IMO, if it didn't try to read the body of a 10M > message into memory.
How would it be more reliable? How would it be quicker? TMDA needs the contents of the message body at some point anyway.
True, it would use less memory if it spooled the message body from a temp file or something instead. However, since this is a more complex procedure, I think it would be more error prone, and less reliable.
Memory is cheap, which is probably why this hasn't been a practical concern in the past.
As I've also said in the past though, if someone wants to propose a well designed solution, and then write some well-engineered code that implements that solution, I'll certainly consider it.
Sounds like over-optimizing to me, it's works fine now. What problem are you trying to solve? If your users are sending really big emails and using up your memory, that's not really something that TMDA is designed to take care of. How about setting your qmail databytes file or setting up a size rule to bounce stuff that's too big. You could write your login scripts in assembler and they'd be less of a memory hog, but that doesn't mean it's a good plan.
Chris Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator JM Associates
"Q: How many software engineers does it take to change a lightbulb ? A: It can't be done; it's a hardware problem."
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
