On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:03 AM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:45:10 -0400 > Michael B Allen wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:56 AM, David Jones <djo...@ena.com> wrote: >> >>> given that install unbound as local resolver takes 2 minutes it's >> >>> even not worth to argue on that topic and a spamfilter without >> >>> RBL's and URIBL's is just nonsense >> > >> >>I have installed a caching DNS server before (albeit probably about >> >>15 years ago). But it just shouldn't be necessary. >> > >> > It can be necessary if you have enough mail volume. >> >> That's not what I'm saying. It should not be necessary to run a >> full-blown DNS server for SA to do it's queries. > > You don't need a full-blown DNS server, you just need a resolver which > is typically ~ 100kB plus whatever space you want for caching. > Mine is currently using 9MB of resident memory compared with 103MB > for a single spamd child process. This handles DNS more efficiently > than SpamAssassin could. > > The closest SA itself could get is to have a dedicated process -
No. You don't need a process at all. It would just be some functions that are called (preferably async but that's easy to make optional). Depending on the size of the cache it could be in memory or a disk file. Then it would be properly "librarified" and isolated. But this thread is getting a little wonky so I apologize in advance for not respond further. Mike
