This is a discussion on Re: Bulk spam scan - SpamAssassin ; Martin Gregorie wrote: > I'd got that message for SA's normal operation and have looked at the > innards of spamc closely enough to see that can only handle a single > message at a time. As I said above, ...
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> I'd got that message for SA's normal operation and have looked at the
> innards of spamc closely enough to see that can only handle a single
> message at a time. As I said above, it was the --mbox option that
> confused me because, in general, an mbox file contains multiple
I have a feeling that's a leftover in the --help output from *way* back;
SA hasn't supported single-pass direct processing of multiple messages
like that since I can recall.
> Given that I'm running spamc + spamd, I have two final questions:
> - would it be better to use spamc/spamd for the scan in place of
Probably better to call spamc, if only to speed up your processing. For
your usage the startup cost for calling spamassassin vs spamc isn't
critical unless you're looking to finish the task as quickly as possible.
> - if spamd is the way to go, do I need to stop my normal mail
> system while the scan is running or will spamd keep the two
> streams separate? I assume it does, but its always good to check.
Ummmm. What do you mean by "keep the two streams separate"? SA
processes what's handed to it, one message at a time; the only reason I
could see trying to separate things is if running your archive through
SA would bog down the server enough to impact regular mail flow. The
processed message goes back where it came from.
For instance, I run two machines that call SA on final delivery via
procmail. Quite often there will be more than one message being run
through SA at any given time; spamd wouldn't be much use in an ISP
environment if it couldn't handle this.