Re: [Bug 4497] New: reorganise PerMsgStatus code

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Daniel Quinlan writes:
> "Loren Wilton" <lw...@earthlink.net> writes:
> 
> > Is there a way that [user rules] could be saved in a more-compiled
> > state when used with spamd and similar?  Maybe name the rules with the
> > username as part of the procedure name, and just add them to the
> > namespace the first time encountered?
> 
> Beyond the memory bloating this could potentially cause and the
> potentially more complicated security aspects, it's important to
> optimize for the common case.  I've been thinking we might be able to
> move all user rules into their own priority and then *only* those would
> be slower and overall performance would be as good as reasonably
> possible.  Also, when there are no user rules, the user rule priority
> could just be skipped for good performance.
> 
> In the long run, it might even be possible to give user rules priorities
> based on the user name (non-numeric ones) so they could be cached.

I don't get it -- how does that help?

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFC5BJAMJF5cimLx9ARAtu/AKCaOu6/yYj46MxHwXiwiEfU54JdPwCfQhSM
6fR7KmFEJfaCgvZ/B3NJTzw=
=0/Gr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Bug 4497] New: reorganise PerMsgStatus code

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> writes:

> I don't get it -- how does that help?

Basically, user rule would always run last.  Something like:

 for (@priorities) {
    standard prorities loop
 }
 if ($allow_user_rules && $defined_rules{$user}) {
    do_xxx_tests($user, ...);  # $user is the priority
    do_yyy_tests($user, ...);
 }

Precompiling could be done by an early Plugin that runs an init message
on each user that has configuration.  The do_xxx_tests routines should
not care about whether you are doing user rules, ideally.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/