http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4469
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-08 10:26 ------- Subject: Re: Add a process/option to efficiently deal with very long mail messages On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:10:15AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IMO, we should take the qpsmtpd approach, too, in terms of storage of the full > pristine message -- if the size goes over the scanning-size threshold, the > remainder of the message data is written to a temp file instead of stored on > disk. (we already use temp files anyway in parts of the code.) Yeah, I was thinking of something simliar where text/* parts (at least) are kept in memory, but other parts are stored in temp files since they'll only be rarely used if at all. Heck, even keep the filename in the part information so that if a plugin wants to call an AV scanner, or something, on that part it'd be easy to just point at the file instead of creating a whole new temp file from the other temp file. ;) In the original SA3 code, BTW, everything was a temp file. Since that seemed overly complicated since each part can have multiple versions, etc, it was converted to the "all in memory" version. > This would allow us to scan even 100MB mails without breaking a sweat and > causing all those FAQs on the users list. ;) Well, yes and no. There's still the hit of storing the message in memory, at least once, when it's initially read in. We could store the pristine body in a temp file, but then any full rules or the rewrite at the end will cause that to come back in. SA is really tuned for "everything in memory". ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
