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 gets data from STDIN, so
there's no filename to pass. That also means no dealing with permissions,
Well - I'd say not really to that...
I mean most SA installs are using it as part of a MTA (Qmail-Scanner,
milter, etc) - so the calling process has the email on disk as a file, and
then pipes it into spamc. Having spamc call a filename would remove a good
chunk of IO.
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 into NFS, educate me ;^)
DAve
--
Systems Administrator
http://www.tls.net
Get rid of Unwanted Emails...get TLS Spam Blocker!
