I've suggested this myself; run all of the negative score tests first, then the positive ones, and stop when you hit threshold. I'm told there are architectural reasons why this can't currently be done.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Thomas Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 5:04 PM To: Scott Rothgaber Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd performance On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Scott Rothgaber is rumored to have said: > > If performance is an issue, how about an option like... > > HIT_AND_RUN 1 > > ...that would cause spamd to stop processing once your threshhold had > been met? IOW why keep scanning text once the message has been > identified as spam? I'm sure that I'm missing something here but I'd > like to know the reasons. There are rules with negative scores, whitelists, etc. You need the _final_ score in order to determine whether or not the message is likely to be spam. -- "Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance." - Will Durant ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
