On Monday 05 July 2004 04:02 CET Scott Truman wrote:
> I see what you are saying, but you are assuming that everybody needs
> that blazing performance. All the sites I have spamassassin on would not
> be hindered at all by running net checks after the local tests.
I'm not against adding an option to make those tests run serially instead of
parallelly. But with your reasoning you contradict yourself a bit: As an
optimization you want to short-cut the net tests if they are not needed --
but above you say you don't need that speed. So what do you want that
feature for?
As we're talking only about the DNS tests here, those don't generate much
traffic in the first place so the advantage you get here is negligible too.
On the other hand can they block your mail delivery for quite some time if
one or more of them times out. As you'd have to run the net tests in many
cases anyway (for me not much spam scores high enough based only on the
local tests), running the tests parallelly is not "balzing performance" but
the only thing which will most probably not affect your overall performance
(counted over several days/weeks) negatively.
>[...]
> As above - if the net tests _could_ be run sequentially after the local
> tests, and the accumulated score was such that net tests didn't need to
> be run, then they wouldn't be run.
Patches are welcome :)
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
