http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3940
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-31 21:04 ------- Been thinking about this some more. It's really much the same situation as with opt_n... Right now, we have: opt_j == 0, 1 process for run, scan occurs in same process and list in memory opt_j == 1, 1 process for run, scan occurs in separate process, list in temp file opt_j > 1, j processes for run, scan occurs in separate process, list in temp file temp file with j == 0 doesn't really make sense since the single process would have already taken the memory hit. no temp file and j == 1 is just j == 0. no temp file and j > 1 doesn't really make sense either since the point of j>1 is higher throughput, so the message list is likely to be large, so you'd really want the temp file. so I'm going to do the same thing as with opt_n. internally, there'll be an option (I'm using run_temp_file) which gets set if opt_j >= 1, and then at least it's cleaner internally. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
