On 2/6/2014 9:11 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Without triple checking the code, my 99.9% belief is Rules are cached. Calling
them multiple times does not trigger a re-check.
I believe so too, which is why this matters. If they were re-evaluated, you
could just sum up a meta rule and not care.
Doing just a sum of a meta rule is misleading because the savings from
disabling a meta rule may only be a fraction if all of the underlying component
rules are being called anyway.
Makes sense, sorry. I knew meta rules were an issue to solve. Didn't
realize initially that was your point.
Thanks for the input. I'll add it to my notes to see if I can find
something elegant. I'm also trying to figure out a score other than S/O
that is better for negative scoring rules. Ideally a Ham rule is always
a 0/(spam+ham) for S/O.
