[Declude.JunkMail] JUNKMAIL Filter enhancements - using them less
I am working on reducing the amount of occasions that I need to call the BODY and ANYWHERE filters to help cut down on my server CPU spikes. I'd like to see these enhancements: 1. SKIPIFWEIGHTLESSTHAN for the filters. If the weights in the Body filter aren't going to make any difference in the final weight, why should I run it. I have to think this one is a bit of code similar to the SKIPIFWEIGHT. 2. Actual weights for the SKIPIFWEIGHT. I need to have my SKIPIFWEIGHT set to 7 points higher than my actual hold weight to accommodate the possibly negative scores for the IPNOTINMX and the NOLEGITCONTENT tests. If these tests were already calculated into the weight at the time of the SKIPIFWEIGHT is examined, I would be running the filter tests less. Does HIDETESTS play into this? Scott Fisher Director of IT Farm Progress Companies --- [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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] JUNKMAIL Filter enhancements - using them less
Scott, It would be even better if the skip weights were listed in the Global.cfg instead of the individual filter files, that way they wouldn't even need to be opened. This could be done with the addition of two columns to the definitions of all of the custom filters and external tests. Regarding the calculation of weights with those negative weight tests, I asked about this a few months ago after a similar discussion and Scott indicated that this wasn't happening. Honestly, I can't really tell you if it is or isn't still happening on my box, though maybe only a small percentage of spam would get the credit and as a result end up in my hold file instead of landing in my drop range. Matt Scott Fisher wrote: I am working on reducing the amount of occasions that I need to call the BODY and ANYWHERE filters to help cut down on my server CPU spikes. I'd like to see these enhancements: 1. SKIPIFWEIGHTLESSTHAN for the filters. If the weights in the Body filter aren't going to make any difference in the final weight, why should I run it. I have to think this one is a bit of code similar to the SKIPIFWEIGHT. 2. Actual weights for the SKIPIFWEIGHT. I need to have my SKIPIFWEIGHT set to 7 points higher than my actual hold weight to accommodate the possibly negative scores for the IPNOTINMX and the NOLEGITCONTENT tests. If these tests were already calculated into the weight at the time of the SKIPIFWEIGHT is examined, I would be running the filter tests less. Does HIDETESTS play into this? Scott Fisher Director of IT Farm Progress Companies --- [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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] JUNKMAIL Filter enhancements - using them less
I'd like to see these enhancements: 1. SKIPIFWEIGHTLESSTHAN for the filters. If the weights in the Body filter aren't going to make any difference in the final weight, why should I run it. I have to think this one is a bit of code similar to the SKIPIFWEIGHT. This is something that we hope to add. 2. Actual weights for the SKIPIFWEIGHT. I need to have my SKIPIFWEIGHT set to 7 points higher than my actual hold weight to accommodate the possibly negative scores for the IPNOTINMX and the NOLEGITCONTENT tests. If these tests were already calculated into the weight at the time of the SKIPIFWEIGHT is examined, I would be running the filter tests less. Does HIDETESTS play into this? Unfortunately, this would be difficult to implement. The reason for this is that Declude JunkMail keeps track of whether a test has failed or not. It starts off with no tests failing, then if a test runs, Declude JunkMail records that it has failed the test. So when it comes time to calculate the total weight for SKIPIFWEIGHT, Declude JunkMail would end up reducing the total weight of the E-mail for any tests that have not yet run that have a negative weight and that the E-mail would have failed. This ended up causing some problems when it was originally calculated that way. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [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.
