RE: Scalar modifiers

["Gray, Richard" <ri...@dns.co.uk>]

 
So it seems resonable for me to write a meta rule for each rule that
checks if a DUL list has been hit and adds a small extra score on?

I assume from what you say that evaluating meta rules is very cheap, so
they shouldn't impact performance by much.

Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:mkettler_sa@comcast.net] 
Sent: 27 January 2005 14:55
To: Gray, Richard; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Scalar modifiers

At 06:54 AM 1/28/2005, Gray, Richard wrote:
>My concern regard processing time. This is basically going to double 
>the number of rules in the SA files. Is SA's meta rule logic greedy? 
>E.g. by putting the DUL rule first if it fails on this will it check 
>the other aspects of the rule? Are there any other issues that I need 
>to bear in mind?

Wait.. First, you need to understand something. Meta rules never execute
anything. All the normal rules execute first, then meta rules run. Meta
rules examine the results of the rules from their previous execution.

Thus, it does not matter which parts of a meta rule do or do not match.
The sub rules have all already been executed before the meta rule is
evaluated.

This means that SA's meta logic is greedy in that all parts must always
be evaluated, however, it also means that SA's meta logic never
double-executes anything.






---------------------------------------------------
This email from dns has been validated by dnsMSS Managed Email Security and is free from all known viruses.

For further information contact email-integrity@dns.co.uk

RE: Scalar modifiers

[Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>]

At 04:05 AM 2/1/2005, Gray, Richard wrote:
>So it seems resonable for me to write a meta rule for each rule that
>checks if a DUL list has been hit and adds a small extra score on?
>
>I assume from what you say that evaluating meta rules is very cheap, so
>they shouldn't impact performance by much.

Correct.. meta rules are quite cheap, so in terms of performance, that's 
not a bad idea...

I might limit the scope of your additions to rules which are fairly high 
S/O, but more for accuracy concerns than performance concerns.