Stop Counting!

[LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>]

I was thinking that, particularly for people who trash messages over a  
certain threshold and are worried about the SA overhead, a stop- 
counting threshold might be a good idea.

So, for example, for my personal mail I could set stop_counting at  
7.0, once a message hits 7.0 (with bayes) SA simply passes it along  
with a score of 7.0+ (to indicate it stopped processing) and is done.

Or is this a silly idea?

-- 
Everybody hates a tourist, especially one who thinks it's all such
	laugh. Yeah, and the chip stains and grease will come out in the
	bath. You will never understand how it feels to live your life
	with no meaning or control, and with nowhere left to go.  You
	are amazed that the exist, and they burn so bright whilst you
	can only wonder why.

Re: Stop Counting!

[LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>]

On 28-Apr-2009, at 08:27, John ffitch wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>> I was thinking that, particularly for people who trash messages  
>> over a certain threshold and are worried about the SA overhead, a  
>> stop-counting threshold might be a good idea.
>>
>> So, for example, for my personal mail I could set stop_counting at  
>> 7.0, once a message hits 7.0 (with bayes) SA simply passes it along  
>> with a score of 7.0+ (to indicate it stopped processing) and is done.
>
> As long as you do not have negative scores.

Oh right.  Must stop posting before coffee.

-- 
<Athene> we all have our moments when we lose it
<Slyspy> the key is though, to conceal the evidence before the police  
arrive

Re: Stop Counting!

[John ffitch <jp...@codemist.co.uk>]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, LuKreme wrote:

> I was thinking that, particularly for people who trash messages over a 
> certain threshold and are worried about the SA overhead, a stop-counting 
> threshold might be a good idea.
>
> So, for example, for my personal mail I could set stop_counting at 7.0, once 
> a message hits 7.0 (with bayes) SA simply passes it along with a score of 
> 7.0+ (to indicate it stopped processing) and is done.
>

As long as you do not have negative scores.

This has come up before, and I seem to remember that the cost of sorting 
rules into order was considered more expensive than brute force and not 
attempting this optimisation

But others may have better memories....

==John ff