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

Reply via email to