as far as I read in the documentation for spamc/spamd -
spamd is faster because it doesn't start an individual perl
interpreter process for every spamassassin call.
since imapassassin uses the spamassassin classes directly
no additional perl interpreter is started.
As long as you don't run multiple imapassassin processes
parallel it shouldn't give you much speedup.
if you do and you would use spamd you'd still have the
multiple interpreter problem. so it would be better to use
threads or preforking in imapassassin.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Well, right now we're using SpamAssassin as a library. So
the perl interpreter is started once when you start
IMAPAssassin. So this is probably even faster than
spamc/spamd. ;-)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Logged In: YES
user_id=493889
as far as I read in the documentation for spamc/spamd -
spamd is faster because it doesn't start an individual perl
interpreter process for every spamassassin call.
since imapassassin uses the spamassassin classes directly
no additional perl interpreter is started.
As long as you don't run multiple imapassassin processes
parallel it shouldn't give you much speedup.
if you do and you would use spamd you'd still have the
multiple interpreter problem. so it would be better to use
threads or preforking in imapassassin.
Logged In: YES
user_id=264711
Well, right now we're using SpamAssassin as a library. So
the perl interpreter is started once when you start
IMAPAssassin. So this is probably even faster than
spamc/spamd. ;-)