Rules compiled as subroutines?

[Ewan Edwards <es...@hotmail.com>]

Hi list,

I'm curious about the mechanism for processing rules, specifically, is there 
a distinct advantage to compiling rule subroutines into the 
Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus namespace compared to, say, using anonymous 
subs?

I'm trying to get per-user rules running within the spamd environment as it 
is not feasible to invoke spamassassin per message delivery given current 
mail volumes on our servers. Also, per-user rules are becoming a necessity 
since the default rule sets (SA 2.6.3) are no longer very effective against 
current spam.

None of the user's rules will require the eval:method(args) facility, 
however, multiple users may use the same name.

Unless there is an advantage to using named subroutines, I will be modifying 
PerMsgStatus.pm to process rules directly. Should the eval: rule definition 
facility become required, I would use anonymous subs, so that multiple 
users' rules do not conflict with each other.

If there are no real complaints about this sort of modification, would a 
patch for the change be welcome?

--
eskwayrd

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines