spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Crocomoth <...@algs.net>
Subject Re: Suggestion to developers
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:23:56 GMT


Matt Kettler-3 wrote:
> 
>> 1. Using this method, admin must understand that the fate of every
>> message
>> (for all users) will depend from the single rule.
> Not if you set it up properly..  You can have multiple rules run with a
> very early priority (low number), then have another one run with a
> semi-early priority which does shortcircuiting. All of the "very early"
> rules will be involved in the decision to shortcircuit or not.
> 

Yes, but low-numbered rules may not generate any points and the desision may
depend from one rule anyways. This does not change anything. And what is
more (see (2) with which you have agreed), in default configuration, this
will be bayes which generates only 3.5 points (not taking into account
while/black lists because they will not be set up properly in most cases). 
And, I think, number of persons not wishing to reorder standard rules will
be much more than "semi-professional" admins.
 

Matt Kettler-3 wrote:
> 
>> 2. I suspect that not every admin could be smart enough or have enough
>> time
>> to develop his own rulesets with shortcircuit involved to get really good
>> and reliable results. But, he could be able to turn some option in config
>> file and restart SA.
>>   
> Agreed.
>> 3. Method proposed by me is not mutually exclusive with shortcircuit.
>> They
>> could work together.
>>   
> Yes, but the method you proposed is only feasible using these tools
> anyway. SA can't "auto-sort" the rules in any reasonble way without
> severely degrading performance, or risking serious miscategorization
> problems.
> 

But, as we can see, an option named "priority" exists.
That means, SA really does some kind of sorting.
And, theoretically, user can assign any priority to any rule and SA will
work, as a stable product. Isn't it?
Sort order may be: negative rules, sorted positive common rules. Any
user-defined rules should be checked after negative ones and before
positives, if exists. Of course, sorting should be performed once upon load
procedure.

Or, such a cut-off may work without any sorting; this is optional. Standard
priorities could be enough, if they set up.


Matt Kettler-3 wrote:
> 
> Trust me, the topic isn't new, and shortcircuit/priority is about the
> best you can do. You have to make those manual decisions.
> 
> Now, it's possible for the devs to be the deciders, not the end-admins,
> but someone has to manually prioritize.
> 

Thank you.
I just want to draw attention of developers to this problem.
Every other message here is about productivity.

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-developers-tf4429767.html#a12653743
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message