MCP Efficiency?

[Scott Silva]

Glenn Steen spake the following on 8/18/2006 8:03 AM:
> On 18/08/06, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/08/06, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 18/08/06, Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > > Hash: SHA1
>> > >
>> > > Sorry, just checked the code. I am doing that already.
>> > >
>> > > The cause of the problem is that SpamAssassin does not appear to
>> support
>> > > the way I am trying to use it. I want 2 completely separate
>> instances of
>> > > SpamAssassin. One has all the normal SA rules as expected. The
>> other one
>> > > has no rules or dns checks or Razor or anything at all, it *only* has
>> > > the few rules specified for MCP checking.
>> > >
>> > > I can't make it do this, while still keeping all the rules
>> compiled in
>> > > both instances and every setup done and cached. The only thing I can
>> > > make it do to run the way I want, is to tell it not to pre-compile
>> all
>> > > the rules. As a result it has to do a huge load of SA compilation for
>> > > every message.
>> > >
>> > > If Matt Kettler is around, maybe he could offer me some advice. I
>> have
>> > > tried asking on the SA list several times, and they don't
>> understand why
>> > > I would want my 2nd instance at all, so I never got any helpful
>> answers.
>> > >
>> > This is exactly what I suspected from the few trials I did recently
>> > (was thinking of starting to use MCP). And that is where I got the
>> > idea to set dns as unavailable. Helps some, but not all.
>> >
>> > The problems lie solidly in the built-in defaults that you cannot
>> override.
>> > What I think you have to do is to maintain a "cleaned" SA environment,
>> > and see to it that MCP uses it by way of a chroot thingie. Really
>> > icky:-(.
>> >
>> Replying to myself after actually reading your code and the code of
>> the spamassassin command, as well as engaging brain just a tad (I
>> might be fooling myself here:-)...
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but whatr you do in MCP.pm should be
>> equivalent to calling spamassassin like:
>> # spamassassin -D --lint -C /etc/MailScanner/mcp
>> --siteconfigpath=/etc/MailScanner/mcp -p
>> /etc/MailScanner/mcp/mcp.spam.assassin.prefs.conf 2>&1 | less -e
>>
>> .... or something very similar.
>> That shouldn't get the effect you cite, nor the effect I (wrongly)
>> observed. It should work IMO (so no need for extreme measures:-).
>> Or am I totally missing something here?
>>
> Ah, just saw the light. Stupid me, please ignore....:-).
> 
Glen is replying to himself again!
Did a Postfix upgrade come out or something? ;-)



-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!