Justin Mason wrote: >> >>> Maybe we should add a --force-reuse that would ignore any msgs that >>> can't be reused. >> I'm thinking that should be the only option for reuse. > > +1 That sounds like a very good idea. Well, at least, let's get an idea > of how many mass-check lines we lose, and we can make a more informed > decision at that point; but I'm pretty sure we should be doing this. even > if we lose 50% of the hits, we'll get a much more accurate picture of the > real accuracy of those rules. >
All mass-check lines have a reuse=yes or reuse=no variable so it would just be a matter of counting those. > the SpamAssassin.org spamtraps don't record network rule hits, but I don't > rely entirely on those in my mass-checks anyway. Most of my personal > spamtrap addresses are run through my normal mail account and are > scanned. > When reuse was first added, the amount of mail NOT scanned was far greater than the amount that was scanned. I'm trying to remember all the conversations about it back then, might we wise to review the archives. Seems like we even tried a scoring run with reuse only mail to see how it turned out. Its pretty easy to take out the hack that copies the non-reuse config into place and I recently identified it as a performance bottle neck. The real question is, how does ignoring those msgs affect results. Michael
