Re: more efficent big scoring

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Theo Van Dinter writes:
> Yes and no.  There aren't many negative scored rules, which could easily be
> put into a low priority to run first.
> 
> The issue, which is where Matt was going I believe, is that the reason score
> based short circuiting was removed is that it's horribly slow to keep checking
> the score after each rule runs.  You can do it at the end of a priority's run,
> but then you have to split the rules across multiple priorities, which does
> impact performance.
> 
> I made some comments about this kind of thing in
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3109 and envisioned SA
> auto-prioritizing rules for short circuiting for things like what I mentioned
> in c7, but there was some strong disagreement about things like SC based on
> score and so it didn't get implemented in the current code.

Well, there's room to implement it given current plugin hooks, but
nobody's done it yet. 

--j.