You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by John Andersen <js...@pen.homeip.net> on 2004/06/04 08:59:00 UTC
spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
While trying to get the Spamcop-URI rules to work for SURBL,
I was never seeing any hits on these rules.
After following every advice on the SURBL list, to no avail
I finally changed my procmail to use /usr/bin/spamassassin -a
instead of routing via spamc to spamd in my procmailrc.
All of a sudden the Surbl code started working (as did Razor2).
So what's up with spamd? Is it incapable of running these newer
features?
--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
RE: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by "Colin A. Bartlett" <sp...@colinabartlett.com>.
Jari Fredriksson Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:30 PM
> On Sat, June 5, 2004 8:04, David B Funk said:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, it's a facade, but not a wrapper ;)
> >
> > Not quite, think of it as more of a "dispatcher". It sits around
> > waiting for 'the phone to ring' and forks off an instance of the SA
> > method to answer the requester's call.
>
> Yes, it's a server all right, so it has a listener and a dispatcher.
> - but now we are hijacking this topic ;)) -
Maybe we should take this to alt.language.english.analogies?
But in all seriousness, does it, or will it matter later, that I have
several boxes with old school versions of SA installed using spamc to call
spamd on a separate box with SA 3.0? My understanding is that since spamc
barely does anything it does not need to be upgraded as I upgrade my spamd
box. Can someone confirm that?
cheers,
Colin
Colin A. Bartlett
Kinetic Web Solutions
www.kineticweb.biz
Re: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by Jari Fredriksson <ja...@bitwell.com>.
On Sat, June 5, 2004 8:04, David B Funk said:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, June 5, 2004 3:13, Theo Van Dinter said:
>> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:00:58PM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
>> >> >Its my understanding that spamd is more than a wrapper.
>> >> >I understood it to be a C program that does the same thing
>> >> >as the SA perl.
>> >>
>> >> spamd is Perl (take a look at it). It's a bit more than a wrapper,
>> but
>> >> not by much.
>> >
>>
>> Ok, it's a facade, but not a wrapper ;)
>
> Not quite, think of it as more of a "dispatcher". It sits around waiting
> for 'the phone to ring' and forks off an instance of the SA method
> to answer the requester's call.
>
Yes, it's a server all right, so it has a listener and a dispatcher.
- but now we are hijacking this topic ;)) -
Re: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by David B Funk <db...@engineering.uiowa.edu>.
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> On Sat, June 5, 2004 3:13, Theo Van Dinter said:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:00:58PM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
> >> >Its my understanding that spamd is more than a wrapper.
> >> >I understood it to be a C program that does the same thing
> >> >as the SA perl.
> >>
> >> spamd is Perl (take a look at it). It's a bit more than a wrapper, but
> >> not by much.
> >
>
> Ok, it's a facade, but not a wrapper ;)
Not quite, think of it as more of a "dispatcher". It sits around waiting
for 'the phone to ring' and forks off an instance of the SA method
to answer the requester's call.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Re: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by Jari Fredriksson <ja...@bitwell.com>.
On Sat, June 5, 2004 3:13, Theo Van Dinter said:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:00:58PM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
>> >Its my understanding that spamd is more than a wrapper.
>> >I understood it to be a C program that does the same thing
>> >as the SA perl.
>>
>> spamd is Perl (take a look at it). It's a bit more than a wrapper, but
>> not by much.
>
Ok, it's a facade, but not a wrapper ;)
Re: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:00:58PM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
> >Its my understanding that spamd is more than a wrapper.
> >I understood it to be a C program that does the same thing
> >as the SA perl.
>
> spamd is Perl (take a look at it). It's a bit more than a wrapper, but
> not by much.
"spamd" is perl, it's not a wrapper per se (that implies that it calls
the "spamassassin" script), but a daemon that runs messages through
the SpamAssassin perl modules. The short answer for what spamd does
is that it essentially performs the same function as "spamassassin",
but stays daemonized so that the time required for perl startup and rule
compilation is minimized.
spamd is typically called by "spamc", a lightweight C program which simply
takes the mail, does a very small amount of logic (is the message too big?
etc,) then passes it to spamd which does the real work.
This is a slightly different version than what is found in "man spamc"
and "man spamd". :)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"It is easier to port a shell than a shell script."
-- Larry Wall
Re: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by Patrick Morris <tr...@adonis.net>.
John Andersen wrote:
>Its my understanding that spamd is more than a wrapper.
>I understood it to be a C program that does the same thing
>as the SA perl.
>
>
spamd is Perl (take a look at it). It's a bit more than a wrapper, but
not by much.
Re: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by John Andersen <js...@pen.homeip.net>.
On Friday 04 June 2004 05:36, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> On Fri, June 4, 2004 9:59, John Andersen said:
> > While trying to get the Spamcop-URI rules to work for SURBL,
> > I was never seeing any hits on these rules.
> >
> > After following every advice on the SURBL list, to no avail
> > I finally changed my procmail to use /usr/bin/spamassassin -a
> > instead of routing via spamc to spamd in my procmailrc.
> > All of a sudden the Surbl code started working (as did Razor2).
> >
> > So what's up with spamd? Is it incapable of running these newer
> > features?
>
> It should, and at least does Razor2. AFAIL spamd is just a wrapper around
> the spamassassin to keep it resident.
Its my understanding that spamd is more than a wrapper.
I understood it to be a C program that does the same thing
as the SA perl.
Anyone know for sure?
--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
Re: spamc-spamd vs spamassassin
Posted by Jari Fredriksson <ja...@bitwell.com>.
On Fri, June 4, 2004 9:59, John Andersen said:
> While trying to get the Spamcop-URI rules to work for SURBL,
> I was never seeing any hits on these rules.
>
> After following every advice on the SURBL list, to no avail
> I finally changed my procmail to use /usr/bin/spamassassin -a
> instead of routing via spamc to spamd in my procmailrc.
> All of a sudden the Surbl code started working (as did Razor2).
>
> So what's up with spamd? Is it incapable of running these newer
> features?
>
It should, and at least does Razor2. AFAIL spamd is just a wrapper around
the spamassassin to keep it resident.