On 10/24/06 8:23 PM, "Ask Bjørn Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neat! > > The documentation has > > +munge_subject_with [SPAM-02.01f] > > shouldn't that be > > +munge_subject_with [SPAM-%02.01f] > Correct. Documentation works better if I copy/paste. >> I propose in the TODO the ability to clock the time it takes for >> spamd to >> scan an email. A month or so ago there was a thread about this and >> I forgot >> I had such a mechanism in my spamassassin plugin. Rather than >> pollute this >> patch with its already suspect sprintf and sed. I can submit that >> as a >> subsequent patch. > > I don't get it. Is "spamd is overwhelmed" a sign the mail was spam? > Or are you talking about handling timeouts from spamd with a 451 > response to the smtp client? > I've seen emails crafted that spin spamd off only to return 4 minutes later. When I've seen this happen, new versions of spamassassin soon appear with emails citing http://secunia.com/advisories/20430/ as a reference. (as an example) Obviously the real solution is to update spamassassin, but we don't die in the mean time.
