[Mimedefang] Greylisting Code on Wiki
jonas_lists at frukt.org
Wed Dec 12 14:28:59 EST 2007
Important note: since I don't use spamd I might well be entirely
confused here. If I am, please ignore this post after alerting us
to this fact.
Andy Lyttle wrote:
>> Anyone else using spamc and have any information to report? Since I
>> use spamc/spamd on the same box, this seems like a no-brainer to
>> implement but perhaps someone has a field-tested warning?
> I've got four MD child processes, which
> means four instances of SpamAssassin loaded in RAM,
If you wait until SA is actually needed before loading it, you
might save some memory since MIMEDefang tries to reuse the slaves
for the same tasks they have allready been used for. Of course
this also means that processing (after DATA) will take longer
the first time a slave needs to use SA.
Combining this with various means to avoid SA for most mails
saves more memory.
As an example the server hjere currently has 6 slaves loaded. 5
of these use a bit less than 20MB each, while one uses almost
70MB. You can gues wich slave has SA loaded.
> So I was thinking, if I used spamd, there would be only one copy of all
> the SA stuff loaded into RAM,
IIRC spamd loads a complete SpamAssassin in each child, so the
main problem will still be there. Either spamd keeps extra
children around using memory, or your filter might occasionally
have to wait (again after DATA) while spamd needs to load a new
child. It might still be more efficient than the above solution
Jonas Eckerman, FSDB & Fruktträdet
More information about the MIMEDefang