Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was actually chatting with another developer in IM about this very > idea last night. It sounds like a good idea, except, that it's more > efficient to launch the RBL tests in the background at the start, then > run the local tests, then check the network test results.
Sure, but we don't have to wait even longer on network test results if the score exceeds some higher threshold. More importantly, we don't have to run DCC, Razor, and Pyzor if the score exceeds some threshold -- those tests can't be started in the background, at least not in our current implementation (which needs to be revisited anyway). > The likelihood is that you'll have to do network checks on more of your > mail than the amount the short cut would be used on, so you're likely > to end up spending more time per message since you'll always be waiting > to start the network checks. Nah, that's not the problem, we'll always want to start RBL queries early, but even now, we don't wait for the slowest ones. The problem we do have to be more careful about is that the repeated check to see if you can exit early can end up costing more than the benefit. The original sort by score code had that problem, mostly because it was poorly designed. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
