Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 07:02 -0700, Daniel Lemke wrote: >> > 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). > > Heh, that came out wrong. :) > > Nitpicking. You meant "spamassassin" there (as in the script's name). > SpamAssassin is much more, includes the daemon, and we do *not* have it > just for "a few mails per day". ;) >
Errm, sorry for that :P -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29173685.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
