[Esd-l] Holy cow!

Brad Wyman tildar at sta-care.com
Fri Nov 8 07:00:02 PST 2002

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Kenneth Porter wrote:

> --On Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:15 PM -0700 Scott Wiersdorf
> <scott at perlcode.org> wrote:
> > Sanitizer/procmail is _far_ more efficient CPU-wise than SA/perl.
> > Don't try shoving a 300k msg through SA, btw, unless you've got a
> > *lightly* loaded server.
> If the server is NOT lightly loaded, why would one NOT run spamc/spamd (to
> save the Perl process per-message startup cost) and get the bonus benefit
> of its size limit?

myself, i cant see any reason not to run spamc/spamd. even on a *light*
load. as for what order to run pa and san, i do it sa first. that way the
10% of mail that i do get that is marked as spam i quareintine. therefor
it never even toutches tha sanitiser. this also makes it easier for me to
do sa -r without having to worry about removing defang stuff first,

Brad Wyman           |\     _,,,---,,_      /"\
bradw at sta-care.com  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_  \ /    I Support the
Network Admin      |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'  X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Sta-Care, Inc.    '---''(_/--'  `-'_)       / \  Against HTML Mail

PGP Fingerprint: 8B1E E12F 3982 0D54 E01C  DFD3 898B 6CA3 ED6F 3E56
"I'm thinking of going back to Windows;
in Linux, none of the viruses seem to work."

More information about the esd-l mailing list