Of course, this would not be simple to implement this, but, I think, as SA becomes more heavy, developers will be forced to find ways of "scissoring". To preserve nagative scores, SA could run these rules first. And, while sorting, SA should take into account possible dependencies between rules - read all rules from all config files and build a forest of rule trees. I think, SA does this anyways and all custom rules will be included into a set of rules in memory. Sort order, for simplicity, could be from rules with high score to ones with low score. And even this could help greatly.
Skip Brott wrote: > > In order to implement something like this, you would need to know the > order > of rules processing (which perhaps there is one - but I don't know it). > You > would need to be careful if you have rules which will assign negative > scores > which typically do so after other rules have already given positive ones. > Every SA implementation would be unique, so SA would have to be modified > to > rules some specific rule sets first before any others (maybe it does now?) > and you would then want to make certain your custom scores go into those > files. In my own implementation, I put my custom rules into a unique .cf > file which I have created so I can distinguish it from other rule sets. > The > "out-of-the-box" SA wouldn't run this file first (unless SA can be > modified > to read a designated file before it reads others). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Crocomoth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:42 AM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Suggestion to developers > > > SpamAssassin is a really great product. > But, it is perl-based and checks every message with a lot of (all) rules > (, > always!). > Volume of spam is constantly increasing, as well as CPU and memory load > that > SA creates on servers. > As a SA user, I would be happy to have the following possibility in the > next > version: > 1. Add an option which will allow to limit number of rules run against > every > message. I.e., if the limit of spam points is reached to required_score, > stop further checking and process the message as a spam. > I think, not all users really interested in gathering all statistics about > all spam messages. > 2. According to (1), it makes sense to sort all rules from lightweight to > heavyweight (including ones which require internet queries) and make > checking in this order. > > This could allow to lower SA footprint. > Thanks. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-developers-tf4429767.html#a12637043 > Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-developers-tf4429767.html#a12638411 Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
