Benny Pedersen wrote: > On Fri, January 12, 2007 02:14, Matt Kettler wrote: > > >> form of expiry is one reason why I say the AWL isn't really ready for >> production use on any servers that have decent mail volume) >> > > if one entry is just deleted when will there be records with 2 ? > I don't understand what you're saying here, at all. I'll take a wild guess at what you might mean..
IMHO, the AWL should use atime based expiry, just like bayes. As it stands now, the "number of hits" based purge algorithm is an absurdly cheap hack at best and is a significant downside to the practical usability of the AWL for anyone with a decent-sized mailserver. This of course means the format of the AWL database needs to change, because right now it doesn't store atime. > awl is tricky but good, we have to live with it or make some changes to how > its updated, eg if and email adresse is seen just long time ago and newer > later delete it from avl, just delete the one 1 entrys makes it not work > > I *think* you're in agreement with what I just said. Using last-accessed time instead of hit-count makes substantially more sense.
