[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Tue, 23 May 2006, John Peacock wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I am wondering if people might have ideas for running two > > > spamassassin plugins, each using a different set of configurations. > > > Strange setup, yes - a unique situation where I'd like to take advantage > > > of spamassassin's functionality for another purpose. > > > > You'll probably want to tell us that that other purpose is, so we can more > > appropriately help you. spamassassin is pretty heavy code to be running > > twice > > (if not just once) on every message. There may be a better way to do what > > you > > intend, but my psychic powers are too weak to determine what that might > > be... ;-) > > Nothing mysterious. Just need to look for certain subjects, > keywords in the body, and URIs, maybe contents of some headers. However, > these apply to specific domain recipients. This purpose would actually run > first, and if a match was found, the second (standard spamassassin) > wouldn't run, anyway. Spamassassin's functionality, since already, > essentially, available, could be easier to use than writing my own, as it > handles URIs across boundaries, etc. The other difference, though, is that > it would only take one match to be a hit, so it would be unnecessary to > continue with tests, but that's life, sometimes.
by the way, you might be interested in the work being done on http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3109 -- short-circuiting, so that if one of a set of rules fires, the scan immediately exits. It's in a branch at the moment, due to some disagreement about whether it should go into the mainline. But it sounds like it'd be useful for what you're thinking of. --j.
