On 2/7/2014 7:49 AM, Torge Husfeldt wrote:
Hi list,
I hope I triggered a constructive and useful discussion here.
In between I realized my data was skewed and I wanted to apologize for
that.
The peak in load happened when I rolled out the rule-set which was
running fine on one machine to the
Am 07.02.2014 07:09, schrieb Axb:
On 02/07/2014 03:04 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/6/2014 8:32 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the
Rules QA process
Hi List,
recently, we're experiencing very high loads on our spamassassin-cluster.
What struck us in the search for a possible culprits were the recent
addition of the tests named
SINGLE_HEADER_\dK
All of which haver extremely low scores in our contect (nonet, nobayes).
From our point of view
On 02/06/2014 12:38 PM, Torge Husfeldt wrote:
Hi List,
recently, we're experiencing very high loads on our spamassassin-cluster.
What struck us in the search for a possible culprits were the recent
addition of the tests named
SINGLE_HEADER_\dK
All of which haver extremely low scores in our
On 2/6/2014 6:38 AM, Torge Husfeldt wrote:
recently, we're experiencing very high loads on our spamassassin-cluster.
What struck us in the search for a possible culprits were the recent
addition of the tests named
SINGLE_HEADER_\dK
All of which haver extremely low scores in our contect
On 2/6/2014 8:17 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the
Rules QA process is the following:
- we measure and report on metrics for the rules that are promoted
such as rank (existing), computational
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the Rules QA
process is the following:
- we measure and report on metrics for the rules that are promoted such as
rank (existing), computational expense, time spent on rule.
I assume
On 2/6/2014 8:51 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
I would probably give the meta-rule no cost - add up the cost of the
components if you want it. (With the understanding that all no-cost
rules are meta rules.)
Meta rules are a scenario that has to be considered for sure. This is
good discussion and
On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the
Rules QA process is the following:
- we measure and report on metrics for the rules that are promoted
such as rank (existing), computational
On 2/6/2014 8:32 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the
Rules QA process is the following:
- we measure and report on metrics for the rules that are
--As of February 6, 2014 5:32:47 PM -0800, Dave Warren is alleged to have
said:
On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the
Rules QA process is the following:
- we measure and report
On Feb 6, 2014, at 18:04, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
On 2/6/2014 8:32 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the Rules
QA process is the
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.
On 02/07/2014 03:04 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/6/2014 8:32 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the
Rules QA process is the following:
- we measure and
14 matches
Mail list logo
