On Wednesday 28 January 2004 08:07 am, Tom Walsh wrote:
[snip]
> > > You can run:
> > >
> > > cat /path/to/known/spam/message | spamassassin -D
> >
> > you should be using spamc and not spamassassin.
> >
> > spamd/spamc is a much better combination, especially on
> > heavily loaded servers.
>
> Jeremy,
>
> While you are completely right spamc/spamd are a better combination
> for performance, there are no debugging abilities in spamc/spamd
> where as there are many debugging functionalities in the standalone
> spamassassin script.
>
> The purpose of my example was to help troubleshoot a slow
> spamassassin installation, not to provide a working solution to the
> problem.
>
> I stand by the fact that running spamassassin with the -D
> comamndline switch is an effective method of testing spamassassin
> and the various checks that SA performs.

While that is certainly true, telling spamd to run in the foreground 
(not adding -d), and to turn on debugging -D is an option, and I'm 
not sure that it differs at all from running spamassassin -D.

From man spamd:

NAME
       spamd - daemonized version of spamassassin

SYNOPSIS
       spamd [options]

       Options:

[snip]
        -d, --daemonize                    Daemonize
[snip]
        -D, --debug                        Print debugging messages
[snip]

-Mark

Reply via email to