On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > "Red Hat Linux Advanced Server provides many high end features such as:
> > Support for Asynchronous I/O. Now read I/O no longer needs to stall your
> > application while waiting for completion."
>
> Can you provide a reference?  I could find it myself but I'm too lazy.
Well, i saw it on the Compaq Testdrive site, then had to seriously dig on
the redhat site... It's in one of their whitepapers...
http://www.redhat.com/pdf/as/as_rasm.pdf
> > Could it be? After 20 years without this feature UNIX finally
> > catches up to
> > Windows and has I/O that doesnt totally suck for nontrivial apps? No way!
>
> Do /dev/poll and FreeBSD's KQ event driven APIs count? IMHO, true async
> io as implemented by Windows 4.0 and beyond is pretty slick, but the
> programming model is substantially more complex than programming to an
> event API like /dev/poll. And true async does not buy much if the
> system call overhead is low (as it is with Linux).
I havent used the FBSD poll, as it's not portable, select and poll(still not
100%) are all that exist in the UNIX world. Redhat of course doesnt count as
portable either, but it's nice they are trying. The Windows I/O model does
definately blow the doors off the UNIX one, but then they had select to
point at in it's suckiness and anything would have been an improvement. UNIX
is just now looking at it's I/O model and adapting to a multiprocess
multithreaded world so it's gonna be years yet before a posix API comes out
of it. Bottom line is the "do stuff when something happens" model turned out
to be right, and the UNIX "look for something to do and keep looking till
you find it no matter how many times you have to look" is not really working
so great anymore.
- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/
beberg@mithral.com

Gary Funck <gary@intrepid.com> [2002-09-18 13:57:00 -0700]:
> In my experience, there are spam messages that sneak past Spam Assassin,
> that Razor will pick up. Those are the ones that I'm calling "marginal".
> Basically, I'm hoping that "the collective" of Razor users make a better
> judge of spam than any single program like SA can, and therefore I can
> benefit from their judgement and get more extensive spam filtering. I've
> seen examples of this already, where SA doesn't score the spam high enough
> to bounce it, but Razor does.
I think perhaps you missed the fact that SA scores are adjustable.  If
you want SA to tag all messages listed in Razor then you can put this
in your ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file.
score RAZOR_CHECK 10
The default score is 3 and the default threshold needed is 5.
Therefore if you wish to have any razor listed messages tagged by SA
then setting a score for any razor listed messages to anything above 5
would be sufficient.
If you are already using SA then the above would be more efficient.
Otherwise you are running all of the mail through razor twice, once
for SA and once again afterward.  If you really want to run Razor
individually then you should set the 'score RAZOR_CHECK 0' so that SA
won't do it and avoid the double network hit.
However, one of the benefits of using SA in combination with Razor has
been the history of false positive reports in the razor database.  The
current score of 3 is hefty, but not enough by itself to tag as spam.
But for any real spam is usually enough to push it over the threshold.
Razor2 addresses the false positive problem but is not yet in as wide
of use as Razor1.
Bob