How would you account for negative scoring rules? (if your message hit's score=5 it may soon be socre=-2 after a negative scoring rule is applied).
The most effective way I've found to lower the SA footprint is to limit the mail that gets to it by using some triage on the MTA side. SA as a standalone tool might benefit from some kind of triage functionality to kill messages immediately as per a "blacklist" rule. The blacklist rule(s) would be run against the messages before the normal ruleset was applied. If any of the blacklist rules were triggered, the message would be dropped without further scanning. -----Original Message----- From: Crocomoth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:42 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.
