https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5871
--- Comment #4 from Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-04-03 02:05:54 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) > It would be quite straightforward to do a 'next-host' rather than a > 'random-host' shuffle. I'd be glad to change the patch if that is preferred. > Doing so with the randomize flag would then mean that the list of servers > (A,B,C,D) would be randomly rotated at the start to something like (B,C,D,A), > but then we could go through that list sequentially if we have to retry the > filter. > > I'm inclined to agree with Daryl that this would be better - and probably > faster to execute at the same time. > > I'm not familiar with this community - is there a process for determining what > the "right" implementation is? we all argue it out here in the bug report thread, and eventually ~agree ;) Daryl has raised a great point -- I agree, 'next-host' would be better. what should happen if there are more --filter-retries than there are -d hosts? IMO once it reaches the end of the shuffled -d list, it should *then* re-randomize and start from the first host in the randomized list. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
