On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:22:42 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 02.06.2015 um 16:30 schrieb RW: > > On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:36:07 +0200 > > Reindl Harald wrote: > > > >> given that USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST score with -100 here there is no > >> real point to fire up all the other tests, it's clear anyways that > >> this message will pass > > > > As far as possible spamassassin does network test in parallel with > > each other and with the local tests. Making one set of network tests > > conditional on another set slows down the scanning of all mail > > i doubt it would slow down since i could skip around 50 dns requests > for 30% of all scanned messages
Skipping those DNS requests would save some network traffic, but not much else. Within SA itself sending requests and processing responses are both cheap; the expensive part is waiting for slow responses and time-outs and that will be short-circuited. > so even if the remaining 70% would get a small slowdown it won't > matter, 90% of all inbound mail don't touch SA at all Which means that any savings made to network traffic by short-circuiting would be diluted by the DNS look-ups on the 90%. Also whether or not the slowdown is small, comparing it with a hypothetical load that's 10 times your actual load is bogus.
