On 2011-07-14 at 08:54 -0700, David Mathog wrote: > I don't have a grasp on the relative benefits of doing the spam checking > in these two different ways, beyond the observation that the sa-exim one > ends up with the headers spamassassin is configured to add. Since there > is usually no free lunch, I'm guessing sa-exim is slower, user more > resources, or has some other problem I don't know about yet...
I don't use SA and hadn't looked at sa-exim's implementation before now. Make sure you set "SAspamcSockPath" to get to use the daemon instead of parsing all the Perl modules for every spam received. Otherwise, there's a little more overhead even then from sa-exim but not enough to worry about on any modern system (reads a config file, exec's another binary; on the same order of the work that Exim does routinely anyway, so I don't expect it to be an issue). -Phil -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
