Author: Phil Pennock Date: To: David Mathog CC: exim-users Subject: Re: [exim] question regarding spamassassin in exim,
especially headers
On 2011-07-14 at 08:54 -0700, David Mathog wrote: > I don't have a grasp on the relative benefits of doing the spam checking
> in these two different ways, beyond the observation that the sa-exim one
> ends up with the headers spamassassin is configured to add. Since there
> is usually no free lunch, I'm guessing sa-exim is slower, user more
> resources, or has some other problem I don't know about yet...
I don't use SA and hadn't looked at sa-exim's implementation before now.
Make sure you set "SAspamcSockPath" to get to use the daemon instead of
parsing all the Perl modules for every spam received.
Otherwise, there's a little more overhead even then from sa-exim but not
enough to worry about on any modern system (reads a config file, exec's
another binary; on the same order of the work that Exim does routinely
anyway, so I don't expect it to be an issue).
