Matt Kettler-3 wrote: > > Sure, some messages will bail out faster, but most messages will take > much longer to scan. How is that better? > > I don't debate that the basic idea of having SA do this "automagically" > would be a great thing. However, the reality of doing it efficiently is > much trickier than you think. > > At one point, one idea was to run all the negative scoring rules, and > then run the positive scoring ones, and bail out if the score went over > the spam threshold during the positive phase. > > The end result of that test was abysmally slow, due to having to scan > the message in two passes (negative header, negative body, positive > header, positive body). >
I trust you. And, probably, any reordering may impact performance (original ruleset is carefully tuned). Unfortunately, I don't know rules order in processing (equal to load order established by first numbers in configs filename?) But, I see that shortcirquit does reordering (bayes, whitelists and some others) and nothing dramatic happens. Even more, this plug-in is recommended for use (in propertly set up installations). Of course, if we will consider an abstract case where negative rules may happen in body as well as in header in unpredictable quantity and order, and reordering is impossible, this idea has no right to live. But, in reality, we see that almost all negative rules are about the header with the only exception - bayes. And this test (bayes) is moved to the top by shortcirquit (before all header tests), and this does not harm performance. I think, this situation (all negatives are from the header) will be preserved in future version of SA, because of nature of email messages. So, I think, it is possible to turn on collected points check after [prioritized rules + header rules] (and inside body rules), without any sorting if this is undesirable. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-developers-tf4429767.html#a12674988 Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
