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.
Relating to Dave's comments below: Would it not be more flexible to move the <action>IFWEIGHT options to the .junkmail file to take advantage of the available scoping options (system/domain/user)? This is also more consistent with the existing .junkmail options such as HEADER, WARN, DELETE, HOLD... Todd Holt 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 Dave Doherty > Sent: 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 to be able to > turn it off when needed for debugging or whatever, but it would save a lot > of processing time under normal conditions. > > My suggestion would be to define it in global.cfg (maybe QUITIFWEIGHT ?) > and > have it become active only when encountered in the junkmail file test > sequence. That would let us group the positive tests first, then any tests > we considered mandatory, then QUITIFWEIGHT would stop the processing at > that > point or any later point if the specified weight is met or exceeded. > > That would minimize the need for SKIPIFWEIGHT and other statements. > > My two cents worth, anyway. > > -Dave Doherty > Skywaves, Inc. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 that in the works now, but it is something > that > > we may end up adding. > > > > -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. > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- [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.
