https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6672
--- Comment #10 from John Hardin <[email protected]> 2011-10-13 17:41:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > (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. Accepted, and agreed about configuring the glue properly, but having spamc/spamd silently "fail" leads to things like, well, this bugzilla entry. How about having spamc log something like that to syslog? spamd logs the processing of the messages, it seems reasonable to me that spamc should somehow log the message being skipped for whatever reason. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
