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.

Reply via email to