[Mimedefang] MIMEDefang 2.57 is Released
David F. Skoll
dfs at roaringpenguin.com
Tue Jun 20 11:48:28 EDT 2006
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
> 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.
More information about the MIMEDefang