From: "Geo" 

"mike"  wrote in message
news:5vl0m2lm2tsf65ip5d7fffj2616cjhvo0t{at}4ax.com...

> No argument there.  My point was that spam filters are more
> CPU-intensive than i/o intensive, and a regular vanilla MTA is very i/o
> intensive.

It is possible to configure any spam filters to be really cpu intensive,
it's also possible not to. Some are cpu intensive by design, others are
extremely fast.

It's really no different than running virus filters on a desktop, some like
norton can suck the life out of a system, others like AVG or Avast you
almost don't notice.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5