"Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is there a way that [user rules] could be saved in a more-compiled > state when used with spamd and similar? Maybe name the rules with the > username as part of the procedure name, and just add them to the > namespace the first time encountered?
Beyond the memory bloating this could potentially cause and the potentially more complicated security aspects, it's important to optimize for the common case. I've been thinking we might be able to move all user rules into their own priority and then *only* those would be slower and overall performance would be as good as reasonably possible. Also, when there are no user rules, the user rule priority could just be skipped for good performance. In the long run, it might even be possible to give user rules priorities based on the user name (non-numeric ones) so they could be cached. So, are any user rule sets using priorities? Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
