On 5 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 09:35, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Yevgeniy Miretskiy wrote: > > > > > The question is: why do I need to run all tests if I'm running spamassassin with >-L flag? > > > > Again, sorry if this topic was beaten to death before... > > > The problem is that some of the scores are negative, not positive. > > > > However a way around this has just occured to me: > > > > 1. Run all negatively scoring tests. > > > > 2. Run positively scoring tests in highest-score first order. > > > > 3. Stop when we hit the threshold. > > Matt, take a look at bugzilla #62 -- there is more discussion of exactly > this there. If you re-order the rules, then the only problem with > short-circuit scoring is razor submission. If "-L" is used though, this > is irrelevant, you can just exit when the threshold is exceeded. It > would probably be good to indicate that score evaluation was > short-circuited in some header or other (probably just tack on the > X-Spam-Status) so people don't get confused. Also, you'll want to make > sure none of the "make test" stuff needs adjusting for the new scores > some of the mails will get.
OK, all implemented and checked in (along with the other stuff (conf ||=, and subject in body). Please test CVS anyone who's interested in this. -- Matt. <:->get a SMart net</:-> ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
