Feel free to reopen the bug if you want, I really have no time or desire to
work on these right now.  I didn't analyze if skipping do_meta_tests for
shortcircuiting has any negative consequences, but if someone wants to prove
it doesn't, go for it and I'll vote on it.  It not enough to just post a
patch that is a "possible fix".


On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 09:42:59AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I think that will have to go to discussion since if the rules don't short
> circuit the way they used to, other rules outside of the ones we control are
> going to act oddly. The one that was reported was with validity for example.
> 
> What happens if I have a local rule that's high scoring and meta that would
> have been short circuited prior?  In 3.4 I would have expected to stop when I
> hit the validity rule, now I continue running and hit another rule that's very
> high scoring and end up with a mis classification.
> 
> From what I understand that is the real world scenario of what it's occurring.
> 
> At a minimum we would have to announce this change for people to look at their
> short circuit rules.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, 09:36 Henrik K <[1]h...@hege.li> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Of course it does and processing doesn't need to stop into a brickwall 
> when
>     it activates.  It simply finishes metas which is not that expensive and
>     might provide some additional useful hits.  No sense postponing 4.0.0 to
>     try
>     to tweak this further.
> 
>     On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 09:28:02AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>     > I have not checked but does the short circuiting actually work? The goal
>     of it
>     > is to lower the resource usage of the tool. If it continues to run and
>     generate
>     > longer than we have a problem still.
>     >
>     > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, 08:50 Henrik K <[1][2]h...@hege.li> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >     Fixed simply with some rule changes as described in the bug.
>     >
>     >
>     >     On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 05:28:00PM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>     >     > [2][3]https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8078 is
>     now open on
>     >     this
>     >     > issue.
>     >     > --
>     >     > Kevin A. McGrail
>     >     > Member, Apache Software Foundation
>     >     > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
>     >     > [3][4]https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:11 PM <[4][5]giova...@paclan.it> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >     On 11/28/22 17:47, Bill Cole wrote:
>     >     >     > On 2022-11-28 at 11:03:29 UTC-0500 (Mon, 28 Nov 2022 
> 11:03:29
>     >     -0500)
>     >     >     > Alex <[5][6]mysqlstud...@gmail.com>
>     >     >     > is rumored to have said:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:42 AM Kevin A. McGrail <
>     >     >     [6][7]kmcgr...@apache.org>
>     >     >     >> wrote:
>     >     >     > [...]
>     >     >     >>> Also, would be helpful to know if this is different than
>     3.4.6's
>     >     >     behavior.
>     >     >     >>>
>     >     >     >>
>     >     >     >> Oh yes, I meant to mention that it is different behavior 
> for
>     >     3.4.6. Same
>     >     >     >> score for the rule, but it appears to actually 
> shortcircuits
>     the
>     >     >     processing
>     >     >     >> of additional rules. At the least, it doesn't add those
>     MISSING_*
>     >     rules.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > This is almost certainly a side-effect of recent reworking 
> of
>     the
>     >     >     housekeeping around which rules have been run.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > As a temporary work-around, I think it would be wise to give
>     any
>     >     rule
>     >     >     that gets SHORTCIRCUITed an overwhelming score in whichever
>     direction
>     >     it
>     >     >     operates.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     Confirmed, r1904981 is the commit that is causing this
>     behavior.
>     >     >       Giovanni
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     > References:
>     >
>     > [1] mailto:[8]h...@hege.li
>     > [2] [9]https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8078
>     > [3] [10]https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail
>     > [4] mailto:[11]giova...@paclan.it
>     > [5] mailto:[12]mysqlstud...@gmail.com
>     > [6] mailto:[13]kmcgr...@apache.org
> 
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] mailto:h...@hege.li
> [2] mailto:h...@hege.li
> [3] https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8078
> [4] https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail
> [5] mailto:giova...@paclan.it
> [6] mailto:mysqlstud...@gmail.com
> [7] mailto:kmcgr...@apache.org
> [8] mailto:h...@hege.li
> [9] https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8078
> [10] https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail
> [11] mailto:giova...@paclan.it
> [12] mailto:mysqlstud...@gmail.com
> [13] mailto:kmcgr...@apache.org

Reply via email to