What I understand from David Franco the developer who implemented the PCRE he had indicated that PCRE was exponentially faster than the standard filters. Although I don't have any measurements I would suggest PCRE as being faster and far more efficient.
David B From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:47 AM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Efficiency question What is more efficient in CPU Utilitization for Declude A BODY CONTAINS filter line or a BODY PCRE filter line? Does Declude have any measurements? In other words if PCRE is 5% faster than CONTAINS, it might not be worth working on my filters. If PCRE is 50% faster, I should work on my filters. Scott Fisher Director of IT Farm Progress Companies 191 S Gary Ave Carol Stream, IL 60188 This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Although Farm Progress Companies has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. --- 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. --- 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.
