blkmajik at monkeyspunk.net
Sun Nov 24 01:54:27 EST 2002
On 2002.11.23 09:24 Gyepi SAM wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:33:13AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> That would require us to read the entire email into memory since it
> has to be parsed for mime parts and decoded. We could also do the parsing
> and decoding into a file, then read the contents of the file upon request,
> but that would be slower, especially since the mime parser probably writes
> the email to file also. It was certainly one of the options I listed.
As a sysadmin who is evaluating bogofilter for part of filtering setup for
over a thousand customers, I would like to state that decoding into memory
would be the preferable solution. In my opinion memory usage is relatively
cheap and more importantly fast, while temporary files add considerable
unnecessary overhead (on larger scale installations).
Now for a home installation.... I still think that in memory is the better
solution. The only place I can see where it will hurt you is if you are
running on an older class machine (say a P90) with 24 MB of RAM and you are
actively running X. I figure all things considered you'd probably use 2 - 3
times the size of the message (guess) in memory. Most machines should be
able to handle a 5 MB attachment occasionally coming in without much of an
impact on an active user since almost all computers I've ever seen someone
actively using are almost always idle unless they are playing a game.
Shawn Michael <blkmajik (at) monkeyspunk (dot) net> | F u cn rd ths u cnt
How many men does it take to open a beer?? | spl wrth a dm!
None. It should be opened by the time she brings it to the couch.
More information about the Bogofilter-dev