https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6672
--- Comment #7 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> 2011-10-13 03:30:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > > By default, spamc will not > > pass a message on to spamd if it's over 512K. It will also not add any > > X-Spam-* headers if the message is oversized. > > Perhaps it should add something like: > X-Spam-Status: Unknown, message is larger than %dKB limit No, it should not. spamc does NOT add any header, otherwise change the message or even parse it in any way. That's spamassassin or spamd business. spamc is a lightweight client for spamd, deliberately "dumb" if you want to say so, and passes on what spamd passed back. The size constraint best should be dealt with in the wrapping, spamc calling code already. If the message exceeds the size limit, there is no point even in forking the lightweight spamc process and feed it a huge message unnecessarily. (In reply to comment #0) > When piping the message through spamc from the command line, the return is > "0/0" which indicates a processing failure according to the spamc manpage. Actually, and according to the man page, spamc by default returns the processed (or un-processed, in case of exceeding size threshold) message. The score and threshold pair including the 0/0 case is only returned with the non-default -c check switch enabled. Anyway, I guess Kris is correct. This is exactly the result you get for exceeding the threshold. Also, in case of a real failure, you'd get a return code indicating the kind of problem you can check for. Louis, can you confirm you get the expected results, when calling spamc with the size option, like -s 2048000 to accept up to ~2 MB? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
