On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 12:28:29PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 10:57:59AM +0530, Sandip P Deshmukh wrote:
> | On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 08:47:00AM -0800, Bob Nielsen wrote:
>
> | > If you use spamc, which is the daemonized version of spamassassin, it
> | > will run somewhat faster, since it is written in C rather than perl.
> |
well, i am using spamc spamd set-up anyway. or i think so. i read
documentation on spamd, spamc and spamassassin and that made me feel
that i am indeed using that set-up.
> | i also experienced the same problem! what is the solution for avoiding
> | concurrent messages?
>
> Don't scan messages concurrently. There are a number of ways to
> achieve that. As you have no doubt noticed by now, there are very
> many pieces that make up a mail handling system. Each one does
> something slightly different and each site/user can plug them together
> a little differently and achieve a different (or similar) effect. One
> way to limit concurrency is to use the "-m" option to spamd (see the
i did append option "-F 0 -m 3" to /etc/default/spamassassin. hope it
helps
> | this brings me to a question, how is spamassassin better than a
> | .forward file that can do a somewhat similar job?
thankx for an easy to understand explanation. the question i really will
like to have an answer for is 'how to by-pass spamassassin on some
messages?' i think it deserves a new thread and i am staring one :)
--
regards,
sandip p deshmukh
------***--------
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
-- Oscar Wilde
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
