On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 19:07 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Performance wise, you are better off running > > spamassasin daemons rather than spamc, and I do so via amavisd-new. > > Umm, spamd is worthless without spamc to connect to it.
I think he confused spamassassin (the command) with spamc. Quick&dirty explanation, in case anyone is wondering: spamassassin can be used three ways: 1. The spamassassin binary, which does everything you need. Basically the program gets called for every mail scanned. 2. spamc and spamd, which is basically spamc split in two separate programs, giving it a server/client way of interactigin. spamc simply reads the mail, and sends it off to spamd. spamd scans it, and sends it back. The advantage if this is twofold: the "heavy" part of spamassassin gets loaded only once, not for everyr mail. spamc gets loaded for each mail, but its a lot smaller/lighter/quicker to load, so your performance is better. The other advantage is you can spamc and spamd running on separate servers. 3. You can run spamassassin indirectly through amavisd-new, which only links against spamassassin's libraries, but doesn't actually load any of the abovementioned binaries. I think mailscanner works this way too, but I might be wrong. In my opinion amavisd is the best solution of the above three - it performs very well, and can use just about any virus scanner available to scan mail with. Hope this helps Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
