: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
If a filter is skipped by SKIPIFWEIGHT, at that point I am not concerned
about logging that filter, as I do not want it to run. Remember,
SKIPIFWEIGHT is only for filters.
However, what if a message gets a high weight
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
: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 7:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
Scott-
I think this is a great idea.
Once we know a message has passed the delete limit, why would we want
to
keep testing it in routine operations? Of course, we'd need
John-
Doesn't SKIPIFWEIGHT also defeat the logging of the skipped tests?
-Dave Doherty
Skywaves, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
I
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Doherty
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
John-
Doesn't SKIPIFWEIGHT also defeat the logging of the skipped tests?
-Dave
] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists)
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
If a filter is skipped by SKIPIFWEIGHT, at that point I am not
concerned
about logging that filter
, 2004 10:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
That is all correct (just one note to clarify, though: END will stop
processing that one filter, but other tests will run).
-Scott
At 10:35 AM 1/21/2004, Keith Johnson wrote:
We
Is there a test, in the works, that will end all processing of
any further filters. Basically, exit all Declude processing, or is it
best to use the SKIPWEIGHT, thanks,
There isn't anything like that in the works now, but it is something that
we may end up adding.
, Inc
Las Vegas, NV USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail
-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004
1:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
Clarification
Todd,
The RBL's and the built in Declude tests are very efficient. The RBL's
also go off all at once essentially
I'm not sure how much of an impact the RBL lookups have in terms of
processing, but I'm thinking this is very small compared to the rest. If
Declude doesn't yet do this, performance here could be improved by only
querying an RBL once regardless of the code that you are looking for, so
for
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday,
January 21, 2004
1:36 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail]
Clarification
Todd,
The RBL's and the built in Declude tests are very efficient. The RBL's
]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
Is there a test, in the works, that will end all processing of
any further filters. Basically, exit all Declude processing, or is it
best to use the SKIPWEIGHT, thanks,
There isn't anything like
Scott,
Sure seems to work like a charm. Again - very kool!
-Nick
There is a new interim release (1.76i28) at
http://www.declude.com/release/176i/declude.exe that changes the way
that the weight is calculated (in i27 it would count negative weights,
but no longer will), and
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a new interim release (1.76i28) at
http://www.declude.com/release/176i/declude.exe that changes the way that
the weight is calculated (in i27 it would count negative weights, but no
longer will), and adds logging at
There is a new interim release (1.76i28) at
http://www.declude.com/release/176i/declude.exe that changes the way that
the weight is calculated (in i27 it would count negative weights, but no
longer will), and adds logging at LOGLEVEL HIGH that should help determine
if there are other issues.
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a new interim release (1.76i28) at
http://www.declude.com/release/176i/declude.exe that changes the way
that
the weight is calculated (in i27 it would count negative weights, but
no
longer will), and adds
That just refers to weights in the last column in the test
definitions. For example, the IPNOTINMX test ends in ... 0 -3. That -3
was originally used in counting the weight (if the E-mail did not or had
not yet failed the test), but no longer is.
I'm sorry, Scott, I must have a mental block
I added the following:
SKIPIFWEIGHT 60
MAXWEIGHT 60
I thought this would force the filter to skip if the weight is 60 and if
the weight inside the filter reaches 60 it should also exit.
Interestingly enough none of the filters that have this at the top ever
execute.
There is a new interim
]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification..needed
I added the following:
SKIPIFWEIGHT 60
MAXWEIGHT 60
I thought this would force the filter to skip if the weight is 60 and
if the weight inside the filter reaches 60 it should also exit.
Interestingly enough none of the filters that have
21 matches
Mail list logo
