I can't disagree as I was answering the why it exists. What are using user prefs to accomplish because I prefer using sql based prefs? Regards, KAM
On September 11, 2015 5:50:43 AM AST, Marc Richter <m...@marc-richter.info> wrote: >Hi KAM, > >why not - spamassassin seems to respect the user_prefs file. Of course >I'd like to stick ti spamc, but if there is no solution for the >user_prefs - issue, it fits only half of my needs. > >Best regard, >Marc > >Am 11.09.2015 um 11:47 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail: >> Spamc exists to save startup compilation time. >> >> If you have real users and use procmail then spamc will be much >faster and pass along the username. >> >> If you use a glue or have virtual users, you might need logic to call >spamc or spamassassin with a desired username. But for me, I would >anticipate switching will just make things slower and not solve the >issue. >> >> Regards, >> KAM >> >> On September 11, 2015 5:35:12 AM AST, Marc Richter ><m...@marc-richter.info> wrote: >>> Guess this means that I have to run "spamassassin" instead of spamc, >>> don't I? >>> >>> I do not understand the reason for spamc to exist then >>
