On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:11:51 +1000
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:23:22AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Granted. But all of this came from Craig complaining that not feeding
> > every message to SA let him process mail on his old machine.
> i made no such complaint.
*sigh* Now I remember why I tossed you into a nice killfile long ago and
should have remade it the first time I saw your name appear on this list. You
lie, badly.
>From Message-ID: <[🔎] 20030910002846.GM28807@taz.net.au>
--- SNIP ---
that first point about minimising the work that SA has to do is significant.
by using other anti-spam methods as well as SA, i reduce that workload to
approximately 1/67th of the total amount. this helps to keep my home mail
server working (on obsolete hardware with very slow old disks) running under
the unreasonable load that spam imposes on it....
--- SNIP ---
"this helps keep my home mail server working...running under the
unreasonable load that spam imposes on it"
> > He forgot to mention that [.....]
> very few home mail servers are dedicated to doing nothing but mail.
Very few home systems dedicate 4/5ths of their RAM, a good portion of
their CPU cycles and a fair bit of bandwidth to being secondary for an often
hit DNS server, either.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp06oHwRWzeS.pgp
Description: PGP signature