> On 05 Apr 2016, at 13:28, LÉVAI Dániel <[email protected]> wrote: > > I *want to* receive "large" > messages. I just don't want them to be *scanned* by spamassassin. See > the difference?
Aaah..., now we come closer and you first clearly stated what you really want to achieve. >>> Anyway, I just injected a hacky patch in spamassassin_on_dataline() with >>> a basic test of a `static size_t' that records the lines' length… >> >> So now you drop the message earlier, once the size limit is reached instead >> of running into the timeout later. I fail to see how this helps you? You get >> less >> mail and even more 4xx replies this way. > > Nope. Why would I drop the message? Of course that wouldn't make sense. > I just push the first n bytes to spamd(1), then when it reaches the > configured limit, it just bypasses spamd(1) for the rest of the lines. > > So basically, I get only the first n bytes scanned by spamd(1) and not > the rest. So, you want a limit option very similar to -l found in filter-regex. After n lines or n bytes you want to stop scanning the mail and just accept it, so your on_dataline() approach is right. There is a slight difference compared to filter-regex, the result in filter-spamassassin is completely read back from spamd(1). So you may want to call spamassassin_close()/clear() in case of limit reached to really stop the pipe. Please, you can just send a pull request (do not forget the man page bits), so that we can merge this feature. -- You received this mail because you are subscribed to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send a mail to: [email protected]
