Re: possible mass bug filing: spamassassin 3
* Francesco P. Lovergine (firstname.lastname@example.org) [041006 15:05]:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:32:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > Just for record, I and a few other people removed spamassassin 3 on
> > > > my workstation due to performace problems. It is really a memory
> > > > and cpu hog. I doubt it is usable as is on any box without
> > > > a good deal of horsepower and memory. I would add at least
> > > > a big warning in its NEWS file about this, until its problems will be
> > > > not solved.
> > > If this is not solved, we really should consider to re-introduce
> > > spamassassin 2 as spamassassin, and the version 3 as spamassassin3.
> Unfortunately, it is also used as the only anti-spam plugin in other
> software, such as amavis AFAIK. As pointed before anyway, releasing those
> kind of tools and thinking of having them frozen for a couple of
> years is a non-sense, plain and clear. The volatile archive
> is having more and more sense.
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.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C