jrudd at UCSC.EDU
Fri Jan 31 21:53:54 GMT 2003
Julian Field wrote:
> >Another thought is with Spam Assassin. I know it has the capability to run
> >in daemon mode (spamd). Does MailScanner even support this? Does running
> >spamd in daemon mode give you any performance advantage at all?
> The spamd daemon merely provides a (narrow) route to the SpamAssassin code,
> which is all written in perl. MailScanner talks to the perl code directly,
> which is considerably faster than having to poke all the files down a
> socket to it. Using spamd would be slower.
Have you done any load testing of the two approaches? In my own (brief)
tests, "time spamc < msg" is _much_ faster than "time spamassassin -t <
msg". This would seem to contract the assertion about poking all the
files down a socket.
Though, it's my impression that what spamd gets you is not having to
re-start spam assassin for each message (ie. avoiding the perl start up
overhead), whereas mailscanner gets around this by being a persistant
perl program. So I can see where spamc/spamd might be better than
running the spamassassin cli tool, but not better than what mailscanner
already does. But I don't know for sure, and was hoping to find some
More information about the MailScanner