16 Jun
2013
16 Jun
'13
4:52 p.m.
Barry Warsaw writes:
It's a valid complaint. What I've suggested in the past is that a rule can do some *nondestructive* processing of a message before it makes its decision. The rule would either throw out the results of the processing (possibly leading to duplication of work) or would cache the results, e.g. in the metadata dictionary (possibly leading to a rather large pickle/in-memory data).
Yeah, I was afraid you'd say something like that. This could be quite expensive in terms of duplicating work for encryption, but I guess we cross that bridge when we come to it.