Re: tuning for procmail

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:

> "Dave Stern - Former Rocket Scientist" <dave(_at_)umiacs(_dot_)umd(_dot_)edu> 
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > We're theorizing that the host was running out of processes and couldn't
> > fork spamc hanging these procmail processes. We therefore presume that
> > 1/ If we pay attention to the order of rules we'll be better and
> > 2/ If we increase number of processes (I think nproc in /etc/system(?))
> > this problem wont bother us again.
        [...]
> :0 fw: ${SA_LOCK}
> * ! ^X-Spam-Status:
> * ! ^X-Spam-Level:
> * < 256000
> | ${SA_FILTER}
        Talking about performance, don't you want:


:0 fw: ${SA_LOCK}
* < 256000
* ! ^X-Spam-Status:
* ! ^X-Spam-Level:
| ${SA_FILTER}

        It's a question. Dose procmail go-count the char's when ever
        we ask for? or it saves the size of the message somewhere (maybe
        get it from sendmail?)

Bye,
 Udi

_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail