Would PersistentPerl Help?

[go...@bobich.net]

Would using PersistentPerl in a setup where SpamAssassin is used with 
MailScanner help speed it up? I tried it, but couldn't spot a huge 
difference.

Gordan

Re: Would PersistentPerl Help?

[Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>]

gordan@bobich.net wrote:
> Would using PersistentPerl in a setup where SpamAssassin is used with
> MailScanner help speed it up? I tried it, but couldn't spot a huge
> difference.
>
> Gordan
>
No, it would not help with MailScanner.

MailScanner loads the SA perl API directly into its own persistent
process, and keeps it running for quite a while (the exact reload
interval depends on your MailScanner.conf)

In effect, MailScanner acts as it's own spamd.

The only thing that could benefit from PersistentPerl would be the
"spamassassin" command-line script, and anyone using that should switch
to spamc/spamd instead.

And what's this got to do with user_in_whitelist?

hint: when making new threads, don't reply. Threaded mail readers will
bury your message under the one you replied to. Changing the subject
doesn't make it a new thread, because it contains:

In-reply-to: <13...@ds.mot.com>

Which is a message about the user_in_whitelist option.

Re: Would PersistentPerl Help?

[Jari Fredriksson <ja...@iki.fi>]

> Would using PersistentPerl in a setup where SpamAssassin
> is used with MailScanner help speed it up? I tried it,
> but couldn't spot a huge difference.
> 
> Gordan

I doubt it. I don't know about MailScanner, but spamd itself, and Amavis for example are persistent processes; which I thing MailScanner is too.

pperl does not help those solutions.