-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sidney Markowitz writes: > I want to see what people think of this before I put something in Bugzilla. > > There are two Bugzilla entries having to do with rule order and > short-circuiting, http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2912 > which is closed and > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3109 which is still open. > > They led me to think about Bayes processing as a special case because it > is so expensive. I base that statement on sonic.net's experience of > having difficulty deploying the latest SpamAssassin because of the I/O > requirements of Bayes processing. The recent optimizations help, but I'm > not sure if they are enough. > > If Bayes were done last, as per bug #2912, or we had a short-circuit > mechanism as in 3109, Bayes calculations could be skipped whenever the > score exceeded some positive or negative threshold. > > A very conservative approach would be to make the threshold limits be > (required_score - BAYES_99) to (required_score - BAYES_00) which means > skip Bayes processing whenever it cannot possibly make a difference. If > there is enough high scoring spam and low scoring ham in the mail > stream, then this would save a lot of processing load. > > Since the Bayes score is not used in deciding when something should be > autolearned, the problems of short-circuiting and autolearning are not a > factor. Does that mean that we should use a special mechanism for Bayes > that is simpler than whatever we eventually do for short-circuiting? > > Does this make sense to people, or should we just dedicate ourselves to > making sure that Bayes processing is so efficient that there will be no > need to treat it as a special case? Hmm. The question is, would it have a big effect? There are very few negative rules -- Bayes is pretty much the only big hitter there -- so for ham, it would have no effect. It may reduce load if the mail stream is mostly spam, though. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFAfxI5QTcbUG5Y7woRAhneAKDDOfcym+5UMoJd1itsA9zp9PRqRgCfXUbX Hp0cowDjUaOL6zojPgdHy50= =7wKx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
