The problem is that it requires going through the E-mail one character at a time and running a test against each of the filters. Each of those tests is much more involved than a string match (which most of the time just requires comparing 2 bytes).> That's something that a number of people have requested, but has two > drawbacks: It requires lots of programming time to create, and lots of CPU > time.Hmmm... Not to be a pest, but I'm wondering if this wouldn't actually IMPROVE performance?
If all that is being added is a single character that is used to replace a single character, it wouldn't be so bad. But once you go a step beyond that -- a single character representing punctuation but not letters, for example, or "*", or regexp expressions, it can get much more complex quickly.
True -- it would likely save CPU time over having multiple filter entries.RULE "free~" finds "free" "free!" "free." "free?" etc. but not "freedom" or "freeze" -- all in one pass. It covers STARTSWITH, CONTAINS, IS and ENDSWITH in one shot. RULE "~sex" finds "sex" "sexy" "sexiest" "sexaholic" "sex!!!" etc. but not "Essex" or "unisex" -- all in one pass. Again, operators STARTSWITH, CONTAINS, IS and ENDSWITH are all covered. One rule.
Again, this is something that we are looking into, but we just haven't made any final decisions about.
-Scott
---
[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.
