Re: Suggesting bayes_atime_update configuration option

[Vesa-Matti J Kari <vm...@cc.helsinki.fi>]

Hello,

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Vesa-Matti J Kari wrote:

> I'd suggest adding a new configuration option called bayes_atime_update,
>
> My plan is to turn on the bayes_atime_update on the master node A and off
> on the slaves B, C, D. That way the slaves would keep in synch
> with the master and they would not have to update the atime-fields
> by themselves.
>
>
> Does this make sense? And would it be possible to apply something like the
> following patch to the SpamAssassin main line? Thanks for the information.

I'm wondering whether my message got lost in the horde of other messages.

I'd appreciate any comments from anyone who's familiar with the
SpamAssassin internals.

My understanding is that the bayes_atime_update set to false on database
slave host would not break anything, because the atime updates flow from
the master to the slaves (via replication). Could somebody verify this
is indeed so?

Thanks for the comments/help/ideas.

Regards,
vmk
-- 
************************************************************************
               Tietotekniikkaosasto / Helsingin yliopisto
                 IT department / University of Helsinki
************************************************************************