Hi list,
I'm curious about the mechanism for processing rules, specifically, is there a distinct advantage to compiling rule subroutines into the Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus namespace compared to, say, using anonymous subs?
I'm trying to get per-user rules running within the spamd environment as it is not feasible to invoke spamassassin per message delivery given current mail volumes on our servers. Also, per-user rules are becoming a necessity since the default rule sets (SA 2.6.3) are no longer very effective against current spam.
None of the user's rules will require the eval:method(args) facility, however, multiple users may use the same name.
Unless there is an advantage to using named subroutines, I will be modifying PerMsgStatus.pm to process rules directly. Should the eval: rule definition facility become required, I would use anonymous subs, so that multiple users' rules do not conflict with each other.
If there are no real complaints about this sort of modification, would a patch for the change be welcome?
-- eskwayrd
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
