Richard Laager wrote: > Does this mean it'd be a good idea to initialize SpamAssassin at the > first use, rather than in filter_initialize()?
Doing it at first use is definitely better than in filter_initialize. However, doing it outside any function may be better, because that happens *before* the multiplexor calls fork() to create slaves. In theory, this lets the slaves share memory used by SpamAssassin. In practice, it works very poorly because of Perl's reference-counting that quickly dirties the pages. > It seems like if a bunch of slaves are going to end up processing only > filter_sender or filter_relay, then initializing SpamAssassin in > filter_initialize() is a waste of memory (given previously mentioned > facts about reference counting, Perl, and copy-on-write). Correct. Note that you don't really gain anything from the "sticky" scheduler unless your MX_MINIMUM is high enough to keep enough running slaves to handle all the different commands. If you use all the features, that means at least 4: filter_relay, filter_sender, filter_recipient and the filter_begin/filter/filter_end set. I guess I should change the example filter. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
