|
Todd, Initially I didn't understand why the complexity was necessary, however it really is in this case. We do gain by having the ability to set SKIPIFWEIGHT according to individual tests, for instance, in my negatively weighted PSEUDO-WHITE test, I set the SKIPIFWEIGHT higher than elsewhere just in case something gets clobbered by the RBL's and other tests. Also, you might want to skip over a very large negatively weighted test if a different threshold has already been reached. What the settings in individual files gives us is added flexibility at the cost of a little extra complexity. Regarding the other Global settings that you mentioned, keep in mind that these would only be useful on servers where everything is treated the same way, and you could only chose one level to stop processing on, not two, because after you stop, you can't keep going :) It might be nice though to have a SKIPIFLOWWEIGHT test that would stop processing if something scored under a certain number of points, this way a negatively weighted pseudo-white file or a combination of tests could be used to save on processing with the rest of the filters. Need for this seems somewhat limited at the moment, but it would provide benefit if done properly. SKIPIFWEIGHT could also just simply be appended with two number fields, one high, and one low, and Scott could make that backwards compatible I'm sure. Matt Todd Holt wrote: 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 wantto -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ ===================================================== |
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarific... R. Scott Perry
- Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification Sanford Whiteman
- RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Clari... Todd Holt
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification Dave Doherty
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification Todd Holt
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarificatio... Dave Doherty
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarific... John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Cla... Todd Holt
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Cla... Dave Doherty
- Matt
