Re[2]: Header rule performance

[Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>]

Hello Chris,

Wednesday, August 11, 2004, 7:11:42 AM, you wrote:

>>I suspect that the "exists" version would be more efficient, use less
>>resources.  ...

CS> I believe this is true. exists: is much faster. But isn't that just
CS> for the header name, and no the contents in that header? I'm trying
CS> to remember this rule. But it looks like it also looks for the
CS> contenets within that header. Which I don't think exists: checks for.

Yes, exists: doesn't check for contents.  However, our rule doesn't check
for contents either -- it just checks to see whether the header's name
exists as "name:" anywhere in the headers (and would match even if that
name: were found in a Received header).

Looks like I'll be converting to the exists: format.

CS> But I could be wrong.

No, you? Never!

Bob Menschel