[Spambayes] SMTPProxy [Was Training]

Mark Hammond 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 mailing list