From: "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 2/18/2005 2:17 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > At 02:03 PM 2/18/2005, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> >
> >>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/branches/3.0/sql/README
> >>(which has a bad MIME-type definition, btw [text/english is not real])
> >>says that SQL lookups are only used with spamd, and so presumably they
are
> >>not used with spamassassin itself. Further poking seems to prove this
> >>assumption correct.
> >>
> >>Is this correct? If so, is there intent on adding this functionality?
> >
> > I'd be a bit surprised.. the plain "spamassassin" command line isn't
really
> > well suited to high volume production use. It's more intended for very
> > simple setups that handle small amounts of mail.
>
> That's not mutually exclusive, and is actually somewhat inclusive. I mean,
> if people are using the spamassassin script on a low-volume basis, then
> there's a low volume of SQL/LDAP lookups, so the complaint is nulled.
>
> >>Because of my postfix/SA setup I'm not able to use spamd very easily.
> >
> > Why not? spamc should be a more-or-less drop in replacement for calls to
> > spamassassin once spamd is started...
>
> I'm using a third-party script for the in-line proxy, and it daemonizes
> spamassassin on its own.
Of course, I am crazed enough that I might try to use spamc anyway and
let the third-party script daemonize spamc, Eric. I wonder if anybody
has been crazed enough to try and can report the results.
{^_-}
