On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:11:26PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > Sorry, but the basic problem I'm speaking about has nothing to do with > > volatile - but just that requiring substancially more memory might be a > > bad idea. We still have inn1 and inn2 parallel (and I'm a happy user of > > inn1), for similar reasons. > But the problem still stands: spamassassin 2.x should not be used > anymore because it's obsolete. > People should either work to reduce the memory usage of 3.x or switch to > a different filtering program. That's silly. Maybe 2.x is obsolete but it catches about 90% of my spam. Which still leaves 20 or so per day in my inbox. But I'd be very pissed if upgrading my PII-233 with 128MB of RAM installs a program which just can't run on that machine. Greetings Torsten
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature