On Oct 06, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> 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. -- ciao, | Marco | [8385 ac29DiCFF88Ek]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature