Gnanam wrote: > > > Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote: >> >> No stability concerns with either. >> >> However, with anything other than a trivial load, do not use the plain >> spamassassin script, but the spamd daemon with the light-weight spamc >> client. The daemon is much faster and consumes less resources, because >> SA does not have to compile all rules and start a full Perl process each >> time -- unlike the spamassassin script, which does. > > Thanks for making me understand this important and critical difference. > But why then spamassassin script should exist - just for my understanding? > >
Like already mentioned, Spamd needs a lot of memory and runs as a Daemon, therefore it uses some of your system resources all the time. No need for that if you're only receiving a few mails per day (and for this, we've got SpamAssassin). -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29173345.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
