[Spambayes] SMTPProxy [Was Training]

Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions tim at fourstonesExpressions.com
Mon Feb 24 14:57:43 EST 2003


2/23/2003 10:13:20 PM, "Meyer, Tony" <T.A.Meyer at massey.ac.nz> wrote:

>> I *think* that the pop3proxy keeps the database open, and so 
>> any training the smtp proxy might do will be clobbered (at least 
potentially) 
>> by the pop3proxy when it trains... am I wrong about that?
>As it have it, as long as they don't try and train at the same time, then all 
is ok.  If I didn't have them running in one process as two threads, yes there 
were these terrible problems of syncronisation.  If someone has big issues 
with the separate threads method, then I'll have to rethink this one.
>

Ok, I think there will be issues with this.  For example, I'll have to run 
four (at least) smtpproxy processes, all sharing the same database with 
pop3proxy.  The pop3proxy uses asyncore to get around the problem of having to 
run multiple processes or threads with the requisite synchronisation problems.  
The chances are very good that this will kill somebody sooner or later.  The 
smtpproxy as it stands now is a good stopgap, but this is the point where we 
decided further investment wasn't worth it.  Now it appears as if it is, and 
so we should probably incorporate it into the pop3proxy code, using asyncore 
in the same way.  Either that, or rearchitect things from the ground up, so 
the spambayes core (classification, tokenization, training, message 
management) are a real server process that's there to serve any spambayes 
running on the system.  This is a bit of a big step, and I'm not sure it's 
necessary, but it IS an alternative, and I believe in exploring all 
alternatives... <wink>
>
>Cheers,
>Tony
>
>


c'est moi - TimS
http://www.fourstonesExpressions.com
http://wecanstopspam.org





More information about the Spambayes mailing list