From: mike 

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:48:07 -0500, "Geo"  wrote:

>"mike"  wrote in message
>news:e0esl2dlfv1obmis8lqrc6s9lj7lppnkvs{at}4ax.com...
>
>> Spam filters are CPU-intensive.  But other than that, you are quite
>> correct.
>
>Spam filters *can* be cpu intensive, especially dumb ones that scan more
>than say the first 10k of each email.
>
>But even for a 1000 employee company, unless they are doing bulk email my
>laptop would be sufficient to handle their email needs, except for the slow
>disk drive.

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.

 /m

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