Stevan Bajić wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:41:30 +0200 > Stevan Bajić <ste...@bajic.ch> wrote: > > [...] >> Classification group is a mess. I need to find time to fix that. >> > I have now changed the code that does group parsing and assigning. Can I send > you a patch to try out? > I'd be more than happy to try out any patch you might have.
> [...] >> It is broken. I mean the whole group support is not consistent. >> > I never played with classification groups. But now reading the code I really > ask my self if that classification group support has ever worked the proper > way? > If I overlook all the other obvious issues and only concentrate on the ussage > of global groups/classification networks then I see that the code only is > made to switch from innocent to spam. If using global group then a spam > message gets automatically switched to be innocent and then later gets > checked against global user. > The source code and README writes about "classification network" but I really > don't see here any big magic or anything that would deserve the name > "network". First result of a member from a global/classification group is > enough to switch the class state. I would at least expect the code to ask a > bunch of members (if they are more members) and then doing the class switch > based on the combined result. But not just first member and then use that > result. > I'd have to agree that I've got anecdotal evidence that the Global Groups portion of Classification Groups never worked properly. Unfortunately I've only been charged with this project recently and the previous admin appears to have just assumed it worked. Ed -- Ed Szynaka Network/Systems Manager LocalNet Corp./CoreComm Internet Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Dspam-user mailing list Dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-user
