"Kevin A. McGrail" <kmcgr...@apache.org> writes: > 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.
Perspective from someone who does not deeply understand short circuiting: 0) I have never had the impression that there were guarantees about the order of rule evaluations. I do have the impression that network tests are kicked off in parallel. 1) My impression has always been that short circuiting is about early termination of scoring and skipping further tests for two reasons: avoiding both CPU time and remote queries for further tests avoiding the elapsed time that such tests will take, so that short-circuited ham can be delivered in a few seconds rather than a minute I have always expected that short circuiting should be done for rules that are -100 or +100, where when they hit you have made a decision. It seems strange to me that someone would configure short circuiting for a rule that does not have overwhelming weight. 2) It seems strange to me to have a situation where a message might hit a +100 and a -100 rule both (on purpose) and further strange that one might have a scheme where one is marked short circuit and the proper classification relies on that happening before the others. Putting on my CS pedant hat, I guess the big question is if there is a violation of a previously published specification. I am probably way off, but I hope this is helpful as a proxy for the typical understanding of someone who does not really understand.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
