[Spambayes] SMTPProxy [Was Training]
mhammond at skippinet.com.au
Tue Feb 25 08:49:27 EST 2003
I've been thinking about this a little, as I see no good reason why Outlook
and pop3proxy could not share the same database on Windows.
> 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.
I've 3 queries here:
* Why will asyncore eventually kill someone? asyncore is complex to use,
but I see no reason to believe it unreliable or unable to scale.
* Why are threads, as opposed to asyncore, not suitable for a personal pop
or smtp server? I would have thought that the maximum number of connections
that need to be supported would be only "a few", and therefore OK to
implement using threads.
* Is there some reason you believe the new bsddb can not be reliably used by
multiple processes? The only time I can see a problem is when one of the
processes is doing a full retrain. Even if one process was "untraining"
while another was training, I don't see a real problem.
> 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.
I'm still confused as to why multiple processes hitting the same db is a
More information about the Spambayes