You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2011/05/12 18:34:01 UTC
[Bug 6515] [review] spamd timeout_child option overrides time_limit
configuration option with nastier behaviour
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6515
Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|spamd timeout_child option |[review] spamd
|overrides time_limit |timeout_child option
|configuration option with |overrides time_limit
|nastier behaviour |configuration option with
| |nastier behaviour
--- Comment #11 from Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> 2011-05-12 16:34:01 UTC ---
> +1.
> I really like the default score override you added.
Right, its puts some flexibility in hands of a user.
> My opinion is that it should be set to -99 because if you run out
> of time and haven't gotten to any negative scoring rules, the time
> out causes a FP.
In the messages hitting the TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED in our log for the
past month (and examining their rule hits, score, and subject),
I can say that the rule hits which triggered during the first 45 seconds
of processing always yielded a reasonably good approximation of the
expected final score. One would be extremely unlucky if rules that
did trigger contributed a large positive score which would have been
counteracted by a large negative score of one of the rules which were
aborted. While it may theoretically be possible, I think that a mostly
neutral default score for TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED is a good approximation.
Assigning it a large negative score would counteract the whole idea
of why this was implemented in the first place (large spam messages
were often given a free pass). I'd like to keep it as it is.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.