> I would like to see the SKIPIFWEIGHT option removed. If we had a > conditional option to stop when a specific weight is reached, then there > would be not need for SKIPIFWEIGHT. In addition, why would anyone use > SKIPIFWEIGHT on less than every test...and why would anyone define one > test with a different SKIPIFWEIGHT value than another test? This leads > me back to a HOLDIFWEIGHT/DELETEIFWEIGHT logic which optionally stops > processing when reached.
Coming in late some my comments may be off. Scott has stated before that to stop all processing once a certain weight has been reached would be difficult and/or problematic. That is where SKIPIFWEIGHT comes in. I use SKIPIFWEIGHT on all body filters, as those are the most expensive in terms of CPU cost. I then have body filters listed in order, from most effective to least effective or specific target. Example, I have a custom body filter on my server for one client only. That is the last filter to run. Also, another reason to not stop processing is if you are doing log analysis and adjust filters or blocks based on that analysis. If you stop processing at say 35, but the message would have failed 5 other tests, those tests will then not show up in log analysis. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
