Hi, > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:42, Arpi wrote: > > when will it be implemented, or better: when will you accept such patch fo > r > > ruleset? (i cannot modify the perl code, as i don't know the perl languege > > nor the spamassassin core enough, but i could help making this optimzation > > to the ruleset) > > You can attach rulefile patches to bug #47 in bugzilla. I'll stick them > in CVS once the coding is done. It's not going to go into 2.1, but > it'll be early on 2.2 > > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47
I don't want to spend many time making the patch, unless it goes immediately into CVS, as keeping it sync with CVS for weeks/months is a nightmare... If I have to do the fork&sync way, i'll fork everything and redesign ruleset syntax to better fit my needs for the C version... > There are many rules though where they don't really have any "words" > that you can pre-match against. So you're still going to have to do a > medium-sized number of regex matches. You might not gain all that much > over just doing the multi-match system, and the coding and complexity of > the program will go up substantially. It does worth, i tried only with 10 rules and it resulted 3 times faster execution... anyway i don't see that 'complexity'. Anyway, if you think regexp is ebtter for perl, you can stil luse regexps in perl version, while allow word table lookup / strstr-like solutions to get much better speed. Note, that my C version is already 5 times faster than perl using spamc/spamd, and I won't stop until I get 100+ mails/sec througput. (currently it's 27 mails/sec compared to 5 mails/sec of perl version) A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team -- Developer of MPlayer, the Movie Player for Linux - http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
