http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3109





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-03 04:49 -------
Sorry it's been a while for me, I've been busy with job and move-related 
activities...

I think we can move ahead with applying the patch, but I can definitely see 
some bits that need to be 
changed.  Some thoughts:

1) There's no point in checking for shortcircuit_type in the sections building 
the eval in do_head_tests, 
do_body_tests, do_body_uri_tests, etc.  In normal usage, these sections are 
only ever called once, and 
shortcircuit_type is guaranteed not to be enabled at that point.

2) I'd move the initial shortcircuit_type check in those above sections until 
after the eval is built but 
before the function is called (assuming user rules are disabled).  This way 
we'll get the evals built the 
first time as usual, and then later on the tests can be skipped before calling 
the rules.


there's a couple of other places that could be tweaked, but I'll worry about 
that later on.


I still think priorities ought to be handled automatically as possible.  I 
don't want to require people to 
have to change priorities around on their own.  This shouldn't be hard in 
theory (hopefully I won't look 
back at this and wonder wtf I was talking about... ;))

The patch also does nothing with mass-check to deal with reuse and 
short-circuit, so we'll want to get 
something in quickly for that.


Also,

>> sixth, an easy addition to this patch would be short circuiting on
>> current message score.  sometimes you don't care what rules hit, but you
>> want to stop after a certain point.
>
>-1
>*no*. This is EXACTLY the approach that has been tried several times
>before, with lousy results -- which resulted in the idea that this
>approach is more worthwhile.  Let's not go around in circles!

yes, except that the problem was performance due to the the constant if checks 
and the lack of 
prioritization.  those two are basically fixed now, so it should work fine.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Reply via email to