Re: spam/ham exit processors

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003, colman@ppllc.com wrote:

>>From my reading of the manual, it seems that the suggested or
>>anticipated
> modus operandi is to move spam in a ham-classified group to a
> spam-classified group for furthur processing and to move ham from a
> spam-classified group over to a ham-classified group for furthur
> processing.  

Nope, you can process the spam at the point of origin or in a central
group.  Most people like a central "spam" group better.

> In such aa situation, do you need both types of exit processors in
> both types of groups?  Or do you just need a ham exit processors for
> the ham-classified group and a spam exit processor for the
> spam-classified group?  

You can do it either way, and it is just a different approach to the
same problem.

> I'm assuming that having an exit processor when you don't need one
> costs you a bit in performance.

The only performance cost is for the analysis of spam or ham, if
there's nothing to be done you won't pay any penalties in performance
at all.  So you can choose to batch up the processing in one group or
break it up over several groups.  It depends on your system, the
particular spam/ham processor's speed, the size of the messages...

Ted