Bump ... anyone have any response to this??
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:34:28 -0500 > Subject: RE: Mail::audit & mail::spamassassin is SLOW - not using spamd ? > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:35:12 -0500 > > Subject: Re: Mail::audit & mail::spamassassin is SLOW - not using spamd ? > > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:27:31AM +1100, Andrew Nelson wrote: > > > I want to use spamassassin through an Exim router pipe to a > > > Mail:Audit perl script. It's all working very effectively and i'm > > > impressed by SA's accuracy, but it's incredibly slow and grinds > > > my server to a halt when activated. It's on FreeBSD 5.2.1. > > > > FYI: SpamAssassin no longer supports Mail::Audit, so you're kind of on your > > own there. > > Ouch, wait a minute. I'm using SA through Perl via the > Mail::SpamAssassin module. Is this the same as Mail::Audit?? > > > > I've run a perl profiler on it which shows most of the execution > > > time is taken by Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::_parse. > > > > If you're using 2.x, yeah, _parse is kind of slow. It's a huge if-then-else > > structure. It was rewritten to do hash lookups in 3.x so it's a lot faster. > > I see 3.0.1 being slower than 2.64 with about the same number of rules > in /etc/mail/spamassassin. Actually I removed some in > 3.0.1. Either way the question remains - is there a way to make this > thing much more efficient like the spamc/spamd methods? Or > better yet, are there plans development wise for this?? I know that > spamc/spamd is a possible response here but I'm not > interested in making major changes to the way I'm calling SA at the > moment so would like some suggestions specific to that.