On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Mat Bowen wrote:
>
> > What about only running the RBLs if the email is below the spam
> > threshold? Most of my mail is classified as spam without running them
> > so it seems unnecessary to spend time checking them only to push the
> > score up higher.
>
> The RBLs take a lot of time in wallclock terms, but not much processor time.
> I could see the use of firing off the RBLs at the beginning of the run,
> though,
> and when you finish with the regexps, if you're already over the threshold
> don't bother waiting for the RBLs to come back.
One problem, Bayes auto-learn of spam demands a certain amount of score
from both body rules and from header rules. One common source of
score for header rules is produced by RBLs. So if you intermittently
ignore RBLs, you may miss out on Bayes auto-learning of spam.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
