You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2007/12/27 01:30:46 UTC
[Bug 5759] New: Say when to switch to spamd
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
Summary: Say when to switch to spamd
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.2.3
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: trivial
Priority: P5
Component: Documentation
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: jidanni@jidanni.org
Move the spamd/README "Performance" section to near the top of the document,
where it should now address:
I get about [number] spams a day on my personal account. Should I switch to
spamd or just use spamassassin?
We get about [number] spams a day of sizes [xxx] to [yyy] here at Big
Corporation, should we switch to spamd?
etc. etc... no just hoping one can infer the answers from the present article.
Answer like "use this formula, the uptime(1) load averages, multiplied by ...
divided by ... if over 2.5, then spamd is worth the extra configuration effort
for you."
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
------- Additional Comments From jidanni@jidanni.org 2007-12-29 12:09 -------
OK, then the docs should say that there is no excuse for not using spamd if one
gets more than one spam between reboots, and spamd should now become the default
installation, with the original spamassassin just becoming a special single run
test option of it...
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
------- Additional Comments From schulz@adi.com 2007-12-28 07:14 -------
> I see. I get five spams a day and should have the daemon loaded into memory
> all day in case a spam comes by?
Well, your machine should page it out if the memory is needed for anything
else. Paging it back in is much lower overhead than starting spamassassin
from scratch.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
------- Additional Comments From felicity@apache.org 2007-12-29 12:29 -------
IMO, this type of thing ought to be in a wiki document. There are many factors for people to think about
the script versus the daemon, and if you want a full discussion about it the wiki is the place to do it.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
------- Additional Comments From guenther@rudersport.de 2008-01-26 21:28 -------
Oh, and FWIW, I pretty much agree with Lorens proposal anyway. If one feels the
need to setup something like SA, a pure MUA based solution (like Thunderbirds
Bayesian filter) obviously doesn't do anymore. So we're not talking 5 messages
total a day, eh?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
------- Additional Comments From jidanni@jidanni.org 2007-12-27 18:54 -------
I see. I get five spams a day and should have the daemon loaded into memory all
day in case a spam comes by?
Well then why not make spamd the default setup, with spamassassin becoming
spamd --no-detatch --test --single-run
--i-not-seriously-hoping-you-will-implement-this
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
guenther@rudersport.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |guenther@rudersport.de
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
------- Additional Comments From guenther@rudersport.de 2008-01-26 21:23 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I see. I get five spams a day and should have the daemon loaded into memory all
> day in case a spam comes by?
Your math is wrong. Instead of considering your spam only, you need to think all
mail that is being processed by SA. Do you get ham? These will be fed through
SA, too.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5759] Say when to switch to spamd
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5759
------- Additional Comments From lwilton@earthlink.net 2007-12-26 21:43 -------
Suggested much simpler wording:
"We recommend you use spamd for spamassassin integration unless you are
integrating into a tool that performs the same general function as spamd. Using
spamassassin by itself adds considerable overhead for each mail processed."
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.