decoding implementation

[Shawn Michael]

<x-flowed>

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.
</x-flowed>