Am 11.06.2015 um 19:28 schrieb Michael B Allen:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:03 AM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: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
sorry, but that is pure nonsensethere is a *damned good* reason why different things are running in different processes and it would be pretty stupid having the dns cache in memory of a SA process
* the MTA before SA is making DNS requests anyways * a spf-policyd called by the MTA is making DNS requests anyways * SA will re-use that already present cacheswith your proposal you need to manage a *shared cache* between the spamd childs (ignoring here that there are dozens of ways to integrate SA into a mailsystem) or waste memory by having each process his own cache view not able to resuse it
and to be honest: in all the time you wasted by writing a lot of nonsense you could have installed a proper resolver and just accept that thounsands of mail-operators out there doing the same for decades now in high-load setups which scale have a good reason to do so instead wasting time by re-invent the wheel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
