Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy
- From: Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:02:50 +1000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87vfrzrkrp.fsf@zip.com.au>
- References: <sUFk.2SM.5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlFv.4Eg.11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tmrX.5Ln.21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tnnT.754.1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tnxA.7hv.1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tFbh.7XR.23@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKDS.7bD.1@gated-at.bofh.it> <u1ln.7or.5@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3Gv.2ir.3@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4jk.33H.23@gated-at.bofh.it> <u6uN.63G.19@gated-at.bofh.it>
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> 20-40/sec, in spamc/spamd configuration.
I find Mail::SpamAssassin in a script (on the news spool) seems faster
than spamc/spamd (which I use for mail). I guess it saves forking,
but I've also wondered if it saves some re-reading of configs and
regexps. At any rate it doesn't seem to start thrashing quite so soon
(on my poor k62/333 with 64Mb).
Reply to: