On November 25, 2003 10:31 pm, Alexander Litvinov wrote: > Heh, it seems it would be nice to make SA scan messages fatser. If I > undersand your idea correctly, you want not to run regexp one by one, but > write the state machine for all regepes and walk on this states by the > mail, but... I undersand how this may be faster (liner time of the message > size) if SA had one rexep for detecting spam. Now SA have muliplt rules > that can be fired simultaneously. For this situation I can't imaging the > way to write the state machine.
hehe, we can give a state to each possible combination of HITS for the rules. So if rules 1, 3, 5, 7 hit, we give that a state, and if 2, 4, 6, 8 hit, we give it another state, and so on... I think they call it subset construction or something... Speaking of which, can't we use lex or something for this? [snipped good point about network tests] Just out of curiosity (as I'm not a perl expert), how ARE things done currently that is different from the DFA/NFA approach that Scott is thinking about? Pedro -- Everything you know is wrong! ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk